this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
619 points (99.5% liked)
Open Source
34663 readers
1051 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man, after decades, why does GIMP still have a marketing problem?
Just visit https://www.gimp.org/ and compare it to https://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop.html
Just assume both did exactly the same thing and cost the exact same amount (free or otherwise). Which would you choose based on their website?
Why does GIMP (and pretty much all FOSS) have to be so secretive about their product? Why no screenshots? Why not showcase the software on their website?
It's so damn frustrating that every FOSS app appears to be command line software, or assumed that the user knows everything about it already.
Devs, you might have a killer piece of software, but screenshots go a long way to help with gaining interest and adoption.
The photoshop page doesn't even have a download link.
0/10 would not download.
Agree, however on clicking the photoshop link was first hit with 2 popups before I could see the page.
Be the change you want to see.
Unless 3.0 has solved it, the gimp has a steep UI problem and a learning curve such that mass appeal on the website would be inappropriate anyway. I love it but I love it because I've been using it my whole life and know it very well. Foss in general struggles with useability due to a lot of hard to overcome problems - mainly, that by the time someone is ready to contribute to any given foss project, they're already intimately familiar with its foibles and probably have strong opinions about what UX elements are sacred cows and should not be fixed.
dont forget how they expect you to compile it. some projects offer a nice .msi for windows, a .whatever for mac, and then linux users just get a link to their github. i mean cmon.
compiling a program takes like 2 clicks dude
"They" most of the times is solo devs and you can't blame them for that. GIMP does have flatpak, appimages, etc.
Krita.org does a nice job of showing off their work and so does Blender
They're not flashy, but they definitely make me want to download them and check them out.
Yeah, I never got into illustration or 3d art/animation, but I sure as hell know what Blender is!
I actually like the GIMP website homepage more than the one for photoshop.
Its simple and efficient. If I want to know more I would go to documentation or tutorials.
The photoshop site just looks like a random squarespace template with a bunch of stock photos.
See, that's not normal, though. You shouldn't need to "dig deeper" to find out what a product is or what it does.
The well-designed homepage should simply tell you that within seconds of visiting. Any additional clicks should only be to "learn more", but not to learn about.
If this was an analogy, imagine a street lined with restaurants.
On one side you've got "Vinny's Italian Pizzeria", "Joe's Burgers and Fries", and "Mary's Bakery and Treats". Each has posters of what they sell posted on the windows, and a QR code to their online menu.
On the other you have "Sal's Food", "Frank's More Food", "Sal's". The windows are either covered in brown paper, or have stock images of "food", but nothing specific about what they actually make. To learn more, you have to go inside, ask someone for a menu, wait for that menu, then have a look. But the menu lacks photos! You either have to know what they are describing to you in the menu, or you would have to have already dined there before.
Does the latter experience sound good? Because that's how too many open-source projects present themselves, and it's to the loss of the volunteer devs and their potential user base.
I feel like the Adobe marketing is somewhat pointless. Anyone that has been in the target industries for any amount of time already know the deal.
GIMP is not Photoshop. They are not competitors. It's a difficult transition. I'm not sure we should even bother drawing a comparison.
I've used Photoshop since 1992. I know, I'm old. I started using GIMP about four years ago. I recently got to the point where I can function.
Money and momentum is a motherfucker. Adobe has fuck you money. GIMP has volunteers. Those that don't like their site should volunteer time or money.
Edit: fwiw I like the GIMP site better too.
Yeah… I was expecting a much larger contrast. Give me the one that doesn’t start off with several popups.
I totally agree
You're welcome to contribute your experties.
I wish I could, but this is a systemic problem, not a problem with one individual project.
Is the mindset that anyone looking for open source, FOSS, or Linux stuff is already tech-savvy enough to know exactly what they are looking for based solely on a text description?
What? There are hundreds of thousands of FOSS projects with great presentation. GIMP is the exception these days, not the rule.
I think it's more so that the kind of people contributing to these projects are on balance not that interested in doing the marketing work.
You can if you wish. You just choose not to. Like so many of us. If more did volunteer, the problem would disappear. It's that simple.
Basically, yes.
Actually I would pick GIMP.
Really think only thing I would like to see is some screenshots and examples of using the tool, rather than just info on what it does. But the Photoshop page barely has this, just a few examples of the AI tools.
I couldn't agree more and I see it everywhere as well. It's systemic.
Problem is, people on Lemmy are techies who might actually prefer the Gimp site. But any "normal" person would not.
Yeah I admit I kind of prefer the Gimp site. Are you saying Lemmy isn’t an accurate random sample of normal people in reality?
Yes, Lemmy is dominated by people with a certain propensity towards tech. You can't use Lemmy users as a gauge for what is good UX I would say.
FOSS projects are often labors of love.
Nobody who isn't completely deranged loves marketing.
Me: Hello niece, what career will you embark on once college is over?
Niece: Marketing.
Me: [audibly] Ah, I see. [inaudibly] Where did our family go wrong???
I mean, the name is a bigger problem than anyone seems to want to admit...
Majority of area in the world does not recognize it as negative thing.
Even for English, English itself is diverse language. Singaporean English, Indian English, Asian English, definitely not negative in all of them.
Forcing one standard of language as a universal is a bad precedent for language diversity.
Idk if GIMP has a marketing problem but I definitely agree that FOSS projects should add screenshots and a description of what the program does to their website and repo. It really annoys me when someone links a piece of software and it just doesn't say what it does and there's no screenshots that would make it easy for me to see what it looks like and how the UI is structured. When there's no screenshots I'm rarely even interested in trying it out because, even with a description, I don't really know what it is. Like, I wouldn't be interested in a car based on only a description, I'd have to see a picture of it too.
I would have to choose GIMP (in spite of this awful name) because that page loaded without javascript and the photoshop page requires me to enable javascript.
I know I'm being a bit facetious, here, but... Adobe can afford to hire full time front end devs and designers. FOSS projects can't really compete with Adobe's investors.
LOL. Brother, I get what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. If Random User X is just looking for an image editor, and they are presented with a few options they know nothing about. Do you think they're going to even bother with the one image editor that doesn't have any screenshots?
Just another comparison, a little more relevant: https://www.rawtherapee.com/
You know EXACTLY what it is and what it does within about 2 seconds. That would be more than enough information for someone to at least make the effort to download the software.
If I recommend some software to someone, most normies I know would directly go on to youtube and check some guy using and reviewing a software. The "official website" wouldn't even cross their mind.
In this day and age if a random user really wants something, they have a miriad of options to see what they're about to use. Forums, Youtube, blog posts and so on.
If a user doesn't even bother a bare , they're better off not downloading random executables from the internet.
The website isn't end all, be all of how users find a software demos. You seem to think a single website is enough for users to make their choices these days. It isn't the 90s.
An informed user goes through that much effort. Most users are not informed and will do a quick search, download something that looks remotely what they think they need, and they're done.
This is why it's frustrating that some really good open-source software end up being lost in a sea of other stuff that was easier for someone to download, without doing a ton of research.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a website, but a website should be "home base" for a software, company, etc. If not the official website, then the developer has less control over the presentation of their product, which would suck.
App stores are successful for a reason: they offer a quick, accessible means to find 1000s of apps or desktop software. And if an app has a poor description or piss poor screenshots, they are skipped very quickly.
The same applies to the UX and UI of an app or website. A poor experience can cause someone to uninstall it (or exit the page), even if it offers them the features they want/need.
Gimp doesn't have a marketing problem. Its well known its just that not many people like it. It is not a nice program to use. I think gimp3 fixes a lot of the janky ui but I'll have to try it out again
Yeah, every time I have ever tried Gimp, attempting to do anything felt like someone had purposefully been contrarian and made every operation work in the hardest and most confusing way.
And someone may say, "well, you just have to learn it!" OK, sure. Or I can use something that makes much more sense from the jump like Affinity Photo. (Yes, I know you have to pay for it, but it's worth it. Yes, I know not everyone has the money to do so.)
this is exactly my opinion on it. one of my main gripes was the text rendering. if i needed to change some text i basically had to redo all of the work on any shadow or stroke as well, not just correct a spelling mistake or whatever. very excited to check out the new version.
Holy hell. I felt like that 20+ years ago when I started using it... I'm surprised that it never got better, from the sound of it.
Progress just has been painfully slow. It just now got the update it should've had back then
Open Source software is not a product that needs marketing.
The devs making Gimp gain literally nothing from you downloading and using it.
Stop applying capitalist logic to one of the few aspects of life that haven't been monetized yet.
That's highly debatable.
Surely, if nobody is using the software, then there's no incentive to keep making it.
Marketing generates interest. Interest gets users. Users (hopefully) get donations and/or contributions to the project.
Even from a purely practical standpoint, why not be clear and avoid wasting people's time as they try to figure out what exactly a project is about?
I'm not suggesting that GIMP take out Facebook ads. But my god, would a few screenshots kill the project?
Making a tool you or the company you work for need yourself, fun, learning, community, doing good, showing off, status, being remembered, (even if it's just in a circle of 10 people)...
Irrelevant for the vast majority of open source projects, which will never be financially profitable.
Maybe because the volunteers working on the project in their free time are programmers, not marketers or good communicators?
Also, they aren't wasting anybody's time by creating useful software and giving it away for free.
I realize I'm being confrontational towards you, but this mindset of demanding things from people who literally give away free stuff with no strings attached rubs me the wrong way, every single time. And this mindset is much too prevalent, even to the point of harassing, insulting and threatening open source devs for choices they make in their projects.
The devs owe you nothing. If you don't like what they do, simply don't use it.
There are other options out there, but they may come with a $23/month price tag.
Idk I like the gimp page. Two clicks, and you're into the tutorial on how to edit pictures. The first page gives you all you need to know: Image manipulation program.
adobe's page otoh... Well after the first two popups, I gave up.
...
Alright, Second try and four popups later, I'm in. gotta admit the funny animations and the tools they show off are pretty nice
I think it's because marketing is expensive and marketing people know that corporations have money to throw at them, and the moment they lower their prices for a FOSS project, they might not get their old revenue when working for a company that can definitely pay what they ask.
We need some sort of FOSM (Free and Open Source Marketing) that helps FOSS projects based on some sort of queue and whoever has recent changes that needs marketing.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "marketing". I'm not talking about spending tens of thousands of Facebook ads, or any ads, really.
A few screenshots on a product page would be more than enough for some projects. Highlight some key features. Generate interest.
It's really low effort stuff that makes a huge difference.
These are all excellent ways someone can contribute to a project. Our project website has a repo anything can contribute to to make changes, even the blog entries are statically generated pages.
Is it because in Linux the UI is so customisable that there's no definitive 'look' to sell?