Hacker News Reader

I wonder if there's a consumer perception around big file sizes for expensive software, e.g. they're getting more for their money.

The commercial 3D programs bundle a lot, including: extensive documentation, video training, example files, material/light databases, example textures and assets, 3rd-party software (e.g. additional renderers). Arguably those things do provide value.

View on HN

Blender Foundation puts a lot of their training materials (which are very good) behind a subscription paywall.

Good on them, seems like a good business model

I'd always wondered how they made money. I've had the (outsider) impression that Blender was substandard in comparison the the paid suites (3Ds Max, Maya) in part because of my interactions with GIMP—my impression has been its lower quality in comparison to PS is a result a of its lack of funding.

Could the GIMP foundation follow Blenders example or is it politically untenable?

I'm not sure about their revenue model but I completely concur with the GIMP experience. When I use it I feel like the wheels are going to come off, and they often do. Photoshop, while a bit bloated at 29 years old, is pretty amazing software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com