Figma Alternatives(stackdiary.com)
stackdiary.com
Figma Alternatives
https://stackdiary.com/figma-alternatives/
200 comments
I'm not quite sure why everyone feels OS means you'll have the app forever. This isn't true in my experience.
Adobe can buy the company that is supplying the devs for penpot the same way it bought Figma.
Sure the source can be reused, but you think another collection of individuals will come along and host the project in the same way?
You think the codebase would be developed/maintained at all if all the original devs left? History says otherwise, from the examples I've seen.
Adobe can buy the company that is supplying the devs for penpot the same way it bought Figma.
Sure the source can be reused, but you think another collection of individuals will come along and host the project in the same way?
You think the codebase would be developed/maintained at all if all the original devs left? History says otherwise, from the examples I've seen.
I've said this before elsewhere and was downvoted to hell. We're about to enter the golden age of bitrot. Software, due to its immense chain of dependencies, requires constant maintenance. There is no guarantee *any software* --proprietary or FOSS--will survive unless some human gives a shit.
So penpot is a great alternative to Figma for as long as you're damn sure someone will be willing to keep it alive.
Everyone has become so used to pulling or downloading whatever random software and have it work and creating forks like wildfire (just look at how many ubuntu flavors there are) without considering what will happen if the devs just don't have the time anymore or don't care. And if something massive upstream changes like CPU architecture (hello M1) or some browser change or some migration to Oauth5, everything gets borked in one shot.
Also, what's going to happen when a package creator dies? The first generation of FOSS devs are still alive and well. Will the second generation decide to maintain their work or is it easier to rewrite things?
Personally this is why I started only pushing packages that have extremely small surface areas (a single function call) that I know I'm willing to maintain indefinitely.
This is also why I became so married to plain text.
So penpot is a great alternative to Figma for as long as you're damn sure someone will be willing to keep it alive.
Everyone has become so used to pulling or downloading whatever random software and have it work and creating forks like wildfire (just look at how many ubuntu flavors there are) without considering what will happen if the devs just don't have the time anymore or don't care. And if something massive upstream changes like CPU architecture (hello M1) or some browser change or some migration to Oauth5, everything gets borked in one shot.
Also, what's going to happen when a package creator dies? The first generation of FOSS devs are still alive and well. Will the second generation decide to maintain their work or is it easier to rewrite things?
Personally this is why I started only pushing packages that have extremely small surface areas (a single function call) that I know I'm willing to maintain indefinitely.
This is also why I became so married to plain text.
The difference is that for FLOSS it is sufficient for anyone to care enough (time and money) but for proprietary software it is NECESSARY for the copyright holder to care and to be alligned or at least not in direct conflict with the users.
Oh, tell me about it! I’ve spent this week trying to reproduce the results of a paper from 2019.
Out of the box, the referenced sources doesn’t even compile or run. I’ve been fighting random Python/Java/Scala dependencies, using whatever version was the “latest” at time of publishing usually works, unless of course, it doesn’t support M1…
Out of the box, the referenced sources doesn’t even compile or run. I’ve been fighting random Python/Java/Scala dependencies, using whatever version was the “latest” at time of publishing usually works, unless of course, it doesn’t support M1…
I'm curious how things like Nix will help with this in the future, especially as the platform matures.
I took a bit of time a little while back to convert a wee app of mine to using Nix flakes to build, specifically because I was getting bitten by API changes in a key dependency. Once I nailed down the configuration to include the version(s) that worked with my original code... it worked. Took a while that first time, but got it done, and now it should be defined in a way that stays robust.
I took a bit of time a little while back to convert a wee app of mine to using Nix flakes to build, specifically because I was getting bitten by API changes in a key dependency. Once I nailed down the configuration to include the version(s) that worked with my original code... it worked. Took a while that first time, but got it done, and now it should be defined in a way that stays robust.
Having a bunch of small packages instead of a few larger ones would be considered increasing surface area in most security software. You could do it safely but I wouldn't be evangelizing this as a sound idea.
I think the difference is that if Figma's website goes offline, you lose all of your figma stuff. If penpot gets acqui-killed, then you can just clone a version that you were comfortable with and keep going.
Yes, just like you can clone draw.io and run that forever. Except, until you can't.
Like last week when Safari 16 broke any use of the command key on Macs and we received 5+ reports per hour until it was fixed.
Like last week when Safari 16 broke any use of the command key on Macs and we received 5+ reports per hour until it was fixed.
I don't think that is a good example, nothing is stopping you from using a different browser or operating system to keep using your preferred application after development is shutdown. If you are self-hosting these avenues are still open to you; a discontinued online service is just gone.
The way that I like to view it is this: if I put my laptop in a vault for 15 years and then open it back up, can I use the software?
Of course, I’ll be on a 15 year old OS but the answer appears to be “yes”.
Not the case with Figma or other hosted tools. Not even the case with Photoshop or tools that require license checks / internet connectivity.
Of course, I’ll be on a 15 year old OS but the answer appears to be “yes”.
Not the case with Figma or other hosted tools. Not even the case with Photoshop or tools that require license checks / internet connectivity.
If you use something like Nix or Guix, then you might be able to continue to install and run that very old software, even decades into the future, until the old repos vanish and the hardware becomes physically incompatible - at which point, if it's important enough to you, you may have put in the work to port the software forward to new (web) API revisions and browser behaviors.
What happened to draw.io? I use it regularly and wonder now if I need to find something new.
> why everyone feels OS means you'll have the app forever.
Your hyperboles aside, I don't think there's much to prove. Maintained and long lasting forks abound. Enough to instill confidence in the principle.
If Figma was open source, there would be a fork right now and a team of contributors forming around it as we speak. That and a migration of a substantial part of its community.
> This isn't true in my experience.
Could you share, so that the naive optimist could at least have some context?
Your hyperboles aside, I don't think there's much to prove. Maintained and long lasting forks abound. Enough to instill confidence in the principle.
If Figma was open source, there would be a fork right now and a team of contributors forming around it as we speak. That and a migration of a substantial part of its community.
> This isn't true in my experience.
Could you share, so that the naive optimist could at least have some context?
>I'm not quite sure why everyone feels OS means you'll have the app forever. This isn't true in my experience.
It at least gives it a chance, unlike closed source where once it dies it most definitely is gone forever (barring some very dedicated and helpful people reverse engineering the code, this seems to largely happen with video games).
Meanwhile I'm running Strawberry, a fork of Clementime, which is a fork of Amarok, which probably has code from other projects older than me in it.
Will FOSS software always live on after the original maintainers move on? Of course not, but not only does it stand a much better chance, you'll still always have the source available to compile it yourself on newer systems, given the will.
It at least gives it a chance, unlike closed source where once it dies it most definitely is gone forever (barring some very dedicated and helpful people reverse engineering the code, this seems to largely happen with video games).
Meanwhile I'm running Strawberry, a fork of Clementime, which is a fork of Amarok, which probably has code from other projects older than me in it.
Will FOSS software always live on after the original maintainers move on? Of course not, but not only does it stand a much better chance, you'll still always have the source available to compile it yourself on newer systems, given the will.
It just feels like one of those things people want to believe no matter if it's true or not. For example, when New York shutdown a recycling plant because it was worse for the environment than not recycling and everyone protested to have it reopened because no matter what anyone told them they believed that recycling is good therefore, the recycling plant was good for the environment.
Most people here need open source tools to do their job in one way or another. They love the fact they don't need to pay for it and they can just use it. They've been sold on the free software ideogly that it's possible to fork means that someone will or they even they will do it. No matter how much their employers refuse to open source their code, refuse to pay for open source contributors they fully believe that using an open source library or tool means there is less risk for their company because they can make the changes themselves. However, the risk is often greater. Almost certainly their employer won't pay for it and they will have to look for a replacement. They won't have any support contracts that can enforce how much notice they get given to find a replacement. The open source tool will most often just be abandoned.
Most people here need open source tools to do their job in one way or another. They love the fact they don't need to pay for it and they can just use it. They've been sold on the free software ideogly that it's possible to fork means that someone will or they even they will do it. No matter how much their employers refuse to open source their code, refuse to pay for open source contributors they fully believe that using an open source library or tool means there is less risk for their company because they can make the changes themselves. However, the risk is often greater. Almost certainly their employer won't pay for it and they will have to look for a replacement. They won't have any support contracts that can enforce how much notice they get given to find a replacement. The open source tool will most often just be abandoned.
Bryan Cantrill's LISA11 talk on this history of OpenSolaris provides a great anecdote for this, and it largely tracks your fears here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=1680s
It also, a couple minutes later, devolves into a hilariously entertaining rant about Oracle and Larry Ellison and the perils of anthropomorphizing lawnmowers, and it's one of my favorite things ever.
It also, a couple minutes later, devolves into a hilariously entertaining rant about Oracle and Larry Ellison and the perils of anthropomorphizing lawnmowers, and it's one of my favorite things ever.
That was wondrously great.
> Sure the source can be reused, but you think another collection of individuals will come along and host the project in the same way?
Look at OpenOffice vs LibreOffice. MySQL vs MariaDB. It can happen. At the very least it's more likely than if you're using commercial software.
Look at OpenOffice vs LibreOffice. MySQL vs MariaDB. It can happen. At the very least it's more likely than if you're using commercial software.
As I recall the majority of the OpenOffice team went to Libre, that isn't the point I'm making here.
The team can take their buy out, work for ~two years then quit. And be more likely to work on the still floss version after that.
VMs are a thing as well. These are not insurmountable issues.
VMs are a thing as well. These are not insurmountable issues.
Honestly, I don't think this is fair. If software is useful enough, there are people and other companies that are often willing to put in money and resources. For a pure community example, consider the story of Jellyfin, a fork of Emby.
Open source is not a panacea. But just because keeping the door open doesn't guarantee anyone will bother to use it doesn't mean having the door open is not ridiculously useful.
I think there Is a way to tell if an open source project is robust against shenanigans:
- The more stakeholders investing, the better.
- Projects with governance and copyright not assigned to a single company have a lot less chance of needing a fork to begin with.
Open source is not a panacea. But just because keeping the door open doesn't guarantee anyone will bother to use it doesn't mean having the door open is not ridiculously useful.
I think there Is a way to tell if an open source project is robust against shenanigans:
- The more stakeholders investing, the better.
- Projects with governance and copyright not assigned to a single company have a lot less chance of needing a fork to begin with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I am not alive long enough to know many examples of open source dying after takeover. The most vivid counter example I can remember is Audacity fork Tenacity. Thanks to how hated muse group is, it generated quite a bit of momentum in the beginning (seems to die down a bit now, but I wouldn't call it dead)
What you say might be true, but at least open source give us second chance, no matter how miniscule (which I'd argue is not miniscule at all). If it's closed source it's pretty much game over.
What you say might be true, but at least open source give us second chance, no matter how miniscule (which I'd argue is not miniscule at all). If it's closed source it's pretty much game over.
Only solution is a spite company.
With a non-gatekept solution you have two options typically unavailable for proprietary software:
- freeze the versions, keeping using it until you find a better one. Practice shows it can be done for quite a while in many cases (years if needed)
- migrate to the different similar software, or hire an expert to do it for you
There were too many cases of wonderful proprietary products suddenly becoming ransomware overnight, holding your data hostage.
- freeze the versions, keeping using it until you find a better one. Practice shows it can be done for quite a while in many cases (years if needed)
- migrate to the different similar software, or hire an expert to do it for you
There were too many cases of wonderful proprietary products suddenly becoming ransomware overnight, holding your data hostage.
Would you prefer FOSS or commercial abandonware?
[deleted]
How did you get burned by Figma? What has Figma done since it announced it's getting acquired by Adobe that has burnt you?
Adobe acquiring Figma is like suddenly realising you're living on a floodplain. Sure your house might not be flooded right now but you better sure have plans in place for when it does, and honestly you're probably better just looking for a new house so you no longer have the stress of wondering when it will flood.
Are you waiting for Figma to get an Adobe-style pricing plan? The general sentiment is that it was a nice house, but now it is burning. Run while you can!
What does this mean? They're both based on subscriptions. Don't most designers already have CC subscriptions?
Is it the lack of a free tier that's the problem?
Is it the lack of a free tier that's the problem?
Designers might. As a developer it was a great relief that pretty much all of the designers I work with adopted Figma. I could finally stop paying $500/y just to view files. With Figma I don't pay anything and can thoroughly inspect designs and export assets as needed without paying a cent (of course most of the designers that are creating the designs pay for a subscription).
Adobe is the Burn.
Anecdotally it looks like it's impossible to write good graphic design software without serious money for multiple employees.
Penpot seems to be funded by an interesting and unusual Spanish incubator. That's better than I expected, but still not great given there isn't a clear good path to profitability.
Sure it's open source, but there's no way I'm taking over development if they stop. That means them stopping their subsidy of the open source software is as bad for me as Adobe raising Figma prices.
https://kaleidos.net/what-we-do
Penpot seems to be funded by an interesting and unusual Spanish incubator. That's better than I expected, but still not great given there isn't a clear good path to profitability.
Sure it's open source, but there's no way I'm taking over development if they stop. That means them stopping their subsidy of the open source software is as bad for me as Adobe raising Figma prices.
https://kaleidos.net/what-we-do
Since 2012, through the eras of Photoshop, Sketch, InVision, XD, Figma, and whatever else, I've been using Antetype: https://www.antetype.com
For me, it's been a 10x tool since it was always the only piece of software that was designed from the ground up as a UI design tool, rather than being some other kind of app that was pressed into service for UI design. Auto-layout, responsiveness, and flexible components that can be edited per instance without breaking their link to the master component are all features that were present from day one rather than being awkwardly bolted on.
For me, it's been a 10x tool since it was always the only piece of software that was designed from the ground up as a UI design tool, rather than being some other kind of app that was pressed into service for UI design. Auto-layout, responsiveness, and flexible components that can be edited per instance without breaking their link to the master component are all features that were present from day one rather than being awkwardly bolted on.
I've never heard of them but they seem to host a solid set of features, and being around since is 2012 is impressive. I think part of a products success is its availability on different platforms, I wonder how long they have hosted this page for? https://www.antetype.com/antetype-for-windows-web/
> it was always the only piece of software that was designed from the ground up as a UI design tool
You sure about this? What about UXPin? XD? Axure?
You sure about this? What about UXPin? XD? Axure?
Looks great but seems to be competing with Sketch. Figma's appeal was being cross-platform; that's hard to beat.
Not to mention multi-player editing [1]. They nailed the execution and no competitor comes close
[1]: https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology...
[1]: https://www.figma.com/blog/how-figmas-multiplayer-technology...
I took this opportunity to look at Sketch again and I'm shocked they still don't have a desktop version for Windows. They are stubbornly wed to their focus on a "truly native" mac app despite Figma proving over and over that cross-platform is what users actually want and need. Seems like another huge opportunity missed with Figma users scrambling for alternatives.
Better, Figma proves how Web apps can be good enough on the browser by itself, no need for Electron garbage.
[deleted]
Do these tools provide the css/js to the developer so they can implement the style these tools generate?
Genuinely asking: Do developers look at these styles as more than helpful tips? Surely these CSS/JS blobs that Figma outputs have to be correctly and carefully merged into the codebase?
I’ve personally only used the generated code as a starting point or guideline at most, because I usually have an implementation in mind already and it’s more work to reorient myself around the generated code.
Not a designer but an engineer that reads designs, and Figma really is a game changer. High quality collaborative designs, great UX, and rather inexpensive to users.
Exactly what Adobe would need to stay relevant because they’re usually the opposite on these fronts :-)
I can’t see switching being too realistic.
$20 billion is a lot of money. That’s worth more than Cloudflare, Snap, Spotify, and just $3b shy of Zoom’s current market cap.
Exactly what Adobe would need to stay relevant because they’re usually the opposite on these fronts :-)
I can’t see switching being too realistic.
$20 billion is a lot of money. That’s worth more than Cloudflare, Snap, Spotify, and just $3b shy of Zoom’s current market cap.
I found Figma docs thrown over the wall from designers pretty hard to consume.
Perhaps it was just how that particular design team used it but
- they put a huge amount of information in a single document.
- lots of sticky note style additions that were not clearly associated with what they referred to.
- hard to search.
- hard to determine what a single unit of work could be. Again, maybe this was the team but they didn't have a concept of discrete tasking. It was just "here's the giant figma doc with everything from p0s to stuff we might not even want"
What are the upsides?
Perhaps it was just how that particular design team used it but
- they put a huge amount of information in a single document.
- lots of sticky note style additions that were not clearly associated with what they referred to.
- hard to search.
- hard to determine what a single unit of work could be. Again, maybe this was the team but they didn't have a concept of discrete tasking. It was just "here's the giant figma doc with everything from p0s to stuff we might not even want"
What are the upsides?
Interesting, we have a similar situation. A lot of information all at once, hard to navigate, search etc. Usually developers are so confused a figma doc is often used more like a prototype to show during a demo than a spec to share. Instead our designers make screenshots of it and put them in a well-organized Confluence document. I don't know what's the right way.
Figma will never be good at dev handoff because it isn't built on HTML/CSS rendering, so its code output is awful. No plugin or interpretation layer can fix this.
CSS is the language of design, yet for some reason every design tool completely ignores it.
Every top feature request on the Figma Forums is for HTML/CSS type features. We need a design tool built from the ground up on HTML/CSS rendering that has a Figma-like interface. Framer and Plasmic are sort of like this except made the mistake of wrapping everything in React code with tons of unnecessary abstractions that make the HTML/CSS output really messy.
I like the attitude relate.app (now Rainbow) has, but I don't see Figma being the final design tool, particularly when working with developers.
CSS is the language of design, yet for some reason every design tool completely ignores it.
Every top feature request on the Figma Forums is for HTML/CSS type features. We need a design tool built from the ground up on HTML/CSS rendering that has a Figma-like interface. Framer and Plasmic are sort of like this except made the mistake of wrapping everything in React code with tons of unnecessary abstractions that make the HTML/CSS output really messy.
I like the attitude relate.app (now Rainbow) has, but I don't see Figma being the final design tool, particularly when working with developers.
> CSS is the language of design, yet for some reason every design tool completely ignores it.
Maybe for web development, but people use Figma for mobile app designs too and those do not for the most part use CSS as the language for design.
Maybe for web development, but people use Figma for mobile app designs too and those do not for the most part use CSS as the language for design.
But CSS would still get you better prototypes that imitate native designs than anything Figma can provide. All the top requested features for Figma are CSS-like features even coming from designers who don't know CSS. CSS has solved many of the most difficult layout and design problems, why reinvent the wheel?
I work on native app designs and other non-product design work in Figma and having the features CSS would provide out of the box would save me literally dozens of hours a month.
I work on native app designs and other non-product design work in Figma and having the features CSS would provide out of the box would save me literally dozens of hours a month.
Yeah, auto-layout (flex) was weird at first but more and more designers get used to it, it becomes a preferable foundation for layout. I think they will love CSS eventually, it's just the teaching/learning process that can get them there. At least currently Figma hype gets them `display: flex`.
> every design tool completely ignores it
Figma shows CSS code in the Inspect view. It's limited, but not ignored.
Figma shows CSS code in the Inspect view. It's limited, but not ignored.
It's not just limited, it is fairly misleading. I had to actively tell my devs to ignore the Inspect panel because it was giving them pixel values when we use rems, or they would hardcode colors that should have been design system tokens because Figma doesn't use color styles in things like effects. Lots of absolute values that should be relative or responsive or tied to tokens. There is a reason there are no good Figma to HTML/CSS plugins or tools out there.
[deleted]
Hi, I work on Plasmic. If not React, how would you encode composition, state, and behavior?
I wouldn't. A huge amount of interactivity can be done in pure CSS, and often design work is exploratory or experimental and doesn't need to output a fully functional component, it just needs the functionality CSS and HTML provide like interactive inputs and focus states.
Once you get the basic design abilities down, you can behind the scenes setup logic using some framework (sure you can use React, but I think tying a tool to a framework like that is a bad idea, React won't last forever and hopefully will die soon in place of newer better frameworks) that doesn't actually impact the basic HTML/CSS that is output.
Devs will still be needed to hook up designs to code logic, but at least give designers the ability to give devs clean HTML/CSS for them to wire up into JSX or Vue templates or whatever because currently many front-end devs are absolutely shit at HTML and CSS and React encourages lots of bad practices with HTML and CSS.
Once you get the basic design abilities down, you can behind the scenes setup logic using some framework (sure you can use React, but I think tying a tool to a framework like that is a bad idea, React won't last forever and hopefully will die soon in place of newer better frameworks) that doesn't actually impact the basic HTML/CSS that is output.
Devs will still be needed to hook up designs to code logic, but at least give designers the ability to give devs clean HTML/CSS for them to wire up into JSX or Vue templates or whatever because currently many front-end devs are absolutely shit at HTML and CSS and React encourages lots of bad practices with HTML and CSS.
Some sort of open AST. Honestly "HTML" is pretty close except string typed attribute. `data-`|dataset is also pretty close.
> Some sort of open AST
well React is kind of that but it's not serializable. The "React Server Components" is trying.
---
We just need HTML but in form of AST so that it is serializable and programmable.
> Some sort of open AST
well React is kind of that but it's not serializable. The "React Server Components" is trying.
---
We just need HTML but in form of AST so that it is serializable and programmable.
I don't follow how HTML comes anything close to expressing dynamism, composition, state, Turing completeness, etc.
Sure, you can encode whatever you want inside of data attributes, but that's just ignoring the problem. You still have to decide on a language to express all that within your data attributes.
React server components also does not is not trying to serialize this. Quite the opposite. We have an in-depth write up here: https://www.plasmic.app/blog/how-react-server-components-wor...
(Sise note: Plasmic's AST is in the open and has an API.)
Sure, you can encode whatever you want inside of data attributes, but that's just ignoring the problem. You still have to decide on a language to express all that within your data attributes.
React server components also does not is not trying to serialize this. Quite the opposite. We have an in-depth write up here: https://www.plasmic.app/blog/how-react-server-components-wor...
(Sise note: Plasmic's AST is in the open and has an API.)
I did a quick dig on Plasmic's AST and not found its spec. Is there a repo for its specification?
> 2. Server serializes root component element to JSON
That's what I'm talking about.
That's what I'm talking about.
For scale: EV maker Lucid is worth 24 billion, and Apple recently had twice that in cash reserve. (Looked it up because of an unfounded rumor linking both.)
Yeah, I think the biggest improvement Figma made is that it made it so much easier to share and collaborate on artifacts from design with the engineering team. The previous process we used for taking Sketch designs and turning then into running apps was much more painful and cumbersome.
Except getting assets out of Figma is a huge pain. Trying to select the layers you need (if even possible), not being able to flatten layers into an exported image, not being able to compress the exported image...
Uhhh what? Sounds like you just throw everything in figma file without using artboards or components.
What do you mean you can’t flatten layers? Isn’t it what “exporting an image” is?
You can absolutely compress the exported image, well you can decide whether you want to export it at 1x 2x etc. It’s a bit different from changing dpi but honestly using figma for print is rough
What do you mean you can’t flatten layers? Isn’t it what “exporting an image” is?
You can absolutely compress the exported image, well you can decide whether you want to export it at 1x 2x etc. It’s a bit different from changing dpi but honestly using figma for print is rough
Sometimes the artboards, components, or whatever the structure in use is doesn't match up with dev needs. Sometimes you need things split up, sometimes you need them flattened. It's just not flexible.
And 1x 2x etc isn't compression. I want a quality slider for JPGs, an 8-bit option for PNGs, I want to explicitly set the output resolution, I want to know how large the original source file is, how it's being cropped, etc.
And 1x 2x etc isn't compression. I want a quality slider for JPGs, an 8-bit option for PNGs, I want to explicitly set the output resolution, I want to know how large the original source file is, how it's being cropped, etc.
"Sometimes the artboards, components, or whatever the structure in use is doesn't match up with dev needs" - this really sounds like you should tell your designers.
"how it's being cropped" - it's not being cropped.
"I want to explicitly set the output resolution" - why tho?
I ask because I found the lack of ability to set resolution as pretty jarring, however to my surprise I never needed it for digital assets
"how it's being cropped" - it's not being cropped.
"I want to explicitly set the output resolution" - why tho?
I ask because I found the lack of ability to set resolution as pretty jarring, however to my surprise I never needed it for digital assets
Figma can absolutely crop images, and sometimes you want to know how much of an image is actually available. And why wouldn't you want to set the resolution? Appropriately sized images are part of proper compression and performance tuning.
And you don't always have time to go back to the design team and ask them to rework tons of comps just because you need to get an asset out of a Figma.
And you don't always have time to go back to the design team and ask them to rework tons of comps just because you need to get an asset out of a Figma.
I am not sure what you’re saying here about cropping. You can see how much of an image is available if you double click on same image. If your designer set it up in a billion of groups you may have to double click a whole bunch. But how is that different from cropping an image in illustrator? I’m not trying to be funny I genuinely do not understand what the complaint is here.
The resolution, I give you that, working with non-vector assets in figma is a bit annoying. But then again, I can export an image out of illustator at a 300dpi but if the original file was 72dpi, that will do absolutely fuck all.
As for not having time to go back to designers, I was not saying you do that every time, I meant, there is a way to have proper process when it comes to hand over to devs. Normally it’s a conversation you’d have once. If you work with people that have no regard for other people’s jobs, I don’t think it’s fair to be blaming the tool. I’ve seen absolute horror in design files on any platform.
The resolution, I give you that, working with non-vector assets in figma is a bit annoying. But then again, I can export an image out of illustator at a 300dpi but if the original file was 72dpi, that will do absolutely fuck all.
As for not having time to go back to designers, I was not saying you do that every time, I meant, there is a way to have proper process when it comes to hand over to devs. Normally it’s a conversation you’d have once. If you work with people that have no regard for other people’s jobs, I don’t think it’s fair to be blaming the tool. I’ve seen absolute horror in design files on any platform.
Snap is losing money and doesn’t seem to have any path toward any decent profitability.
Spotify is a low margin business since no matter how much it makes in revenue, it will always have to give 70% to the labels - a company with high marginal costs that scales with revenue is the opposite of a successful tech company.
Cloud flare is also losing money.
Why would any of these companies besides Zoom be considered a successful company that should have a high valuation?
Spotify is a low margin business since no matter how much it makes in revenue, it will always have to give 70% to the labels - a company with high marginal costs that scales with revenue is the opposite of a successful tech company.
Cloud flare is also losing money.
Why would any of these companies besides Zoom be considered a successful company that should have a high valuation?
I really wish OmniGroup had the vision and resources to bring OmniGraffle into some kind of shared collaborative editing world, whether by developing a web app, or incorporating some kind of collaborative, versioned backend for "corporate" users.
It has one of the best overall general diagramming/graph layout engines and UI of anything I've used on the desktop and web. My experience in the diagramming, layout and technical-ish drawing realm includes Figma, as well as Illustrator, Photoshop, Pagemaker, Freehand, Deneba Canvas, Mac Draw Pro.
I still love Omnigraffle for flow charts, presentations, UML diagrams, and UI wireframes. It's not a 1:1 replacement for Figma, but it suits many of the same problems.
But its existence as a solo, mac-only, desktop-only app relegates it to my personal projects and I can never use it fully at work.
It has one of the best overall general diagramming/graph layout engines and UI of anything I've used on the desktop and web. My experience in the diagramming, layout and technical-ish drawing realm includes Figma, as well as Illustrator, Photoshop, Pagemaker, Freehand, Deneba Canvas, Mac Draw Pro.
I still love Omnigraffle for flow charts, presentations, UML diagrams, and UI wireframes. It's not a 1:1 replacement for Figma, but it suits many of the same problems.
But its existence as a solo, mac-only, desktop-only app relegates it to my personal projects and I can never use it fully at work.
> mac-only
I was trying to figure out why I’d never heard of Omnigraffle and then saw this. Makes sense. It’s interesting that there are so many Mac-only design tools
I was trying to figure out why I’d never heard of Omnigraffle and then saw this. Makes sense. It’s interesting that there are so many Mac-only design tools
It all started with Steve Jobs' focus on typography. There's a lesson to be learned there somewhere about serving a niche and benefiting from the network effect.
The number of feature areas where Figma succeeded and Adobe failed is astounding. The closest analogue I can think of is SpaceX and Boeing.
Figma solved online tooling, collaboration, interaction protoyping, design systems, and stakeholder review with a single product. Their renderer can handle hundreds of frames in the same screen with no performance degradation.
Meanwhile Adobe continues to struggle putting together version of photoshop or lightroom on a tablet that people like.
Figma solved online tooling, collaboration, interaction protoyping, design systems, and stakeholder review with a single product. Their renderer can handle hundreds of frames in the same screen with no performance degradation.
Meanwhile Adobe continues to struggle putting together version of photoshop or lightroom on a tablet that people like.
Adobe it's a classic case of Sales-led-development, which started to generate a huge organisation that is very slow and far away from it's users.
On the other hand you have a Figma, product-led, figuring out what's best for users, and kicking ass with a web-based solution that IS what designers/devs need. Legends!
On the other hand you have a Figma, product-led, figuring out what's best for users, and kicking ass with a web-based solution that IS what designers/devs need. Legends!
> Meanwhile Adobe continues to struggle putting together version of photoshop or lightroom on a tablet that people like.
I'm sure there's more to it than this, but Figma started with a clean slate. Having a legacy codebase means a few things, and one that doesn't get talked about very often is that there is a lot of pressure to re-use code even if it would be more difficult than a re-implementation.
I've worked on legacy codebases, and it goes something like: you start working on a new feature. You realize you need to implement some extra detail you didn't think of. You mention this in standup, and your manager says something like, "oh, no problem, Steve implemented a function that does that back in '97. You should use that because the old code already handles all these edge cases." So then you spend the next 2-3 sprints struggling to get Steve's code working, because his code and your code both made some assumptions about the data model that are incompatible. It doesn't really help that Steve's code has some subtle reliance on global state, so you have to worry about saving that global state, changing it, calling Steve's code, restoring the saved state, all while praying to various gods that it doesn't break anything on another thread you didn't know about.
Or it would have taken just a couple of days to reimplement it in a way that already plays ball with your data model. Sure, it's not DRY, but dogmatic DRY can be a big source of pain in legacy codebase.
I'm sure there's more to it than this, but Figma started with a clean slate. Having a legacy codebase means a few things, and one that doesn't get talked about very often is that there is a lot of pressure to re-use code even if it would be more difficult than a re-implementation.
I've worked on legacy codebases, and it goes something like: you start working on a new feature. You realize you need to implement some extra detail you didn't think of. You mention this in standup, and your manager says something like, "oh, no problem, Steve implemented a function that does that back in '97. You should use that because the old code already handles all these edge cases." So then you spend the next 2-3 sprints struggling to get Steve's code working, because his code and your code both made some assumptions about the data model that are incompatible. It doesn't really help that Steve's code has some subtle reliance on global state, so you have to worry about saving that global state, changing it, calling Steve's code, restoring the saved state, all while praying to various gods that it doesn't break anything on another thread you didn't know about.
Or it would have taken just a couple of days to reimplement it in a way that already plays ball with your data model. Sure, it's not DRY, but dogmatic DRY can be a big source of pain in legacy codebase.
Lightroom and Photoshop for iPad are brand new and nowhere close to their legacy versions.
that doesn't mean they haven't relied heavily on either re-using Ps code or making an effort to shim between the various OSs and what they already have for Ps.
Adobe XD started with a clean slate but ended up being inferior to Figma. Even simple XD shared prototypes on the web are multiple times slower and less responsive than figmas.
Photoshop is a VASTLY more complicated, sophisticated, and feature rich product than Figma. It's not fair or relevant to compare them directly
Icons8 Lunacy is also quite an impressive and free Figma Alternative.
https://icons8.com/lunacy
My first thought is... how is this free if it's similar to FIGMA?
It sounds like they have basically bundled in a lot of their own icons/svg stuff and that's their business model? But even then building such an app seems like a huge investment if it's just a platform to sell your icons. So I must be missing something.
And how does it compare to Penpot?
It sounds like they have basically bundled in a lot of their own icons/svg stuff and that's their business model? But even then building such an app seems like a huge investment if it's just a platform to sell your icons. So I must be missing something.
And how does it compare to Penpot?
Founder here.
You have correct observations and ask the right questions.
1. We do promote our content. It's not enough to support the development. 2. We could afford a generous freemium. Unlike Figma, Lunacy is resource-efficient and has no pressure from investors. 3. However, collaboration requires cloud, so we'll charge for cloud storage.
TLDR Lunacy will be a highly generous freemium.
You have correct observations and ask the right questions.
1. We do promote our content. It's not enough to support the development. 2. We could afford a generous freemium. Unlike Figma, Lunacy is resource-efficient and has no pressure from investors. 3. However, collaboration requires cloud, so we'll charge for cloud storage.
TLDR Lunacy will be a highly generous freemium.
It opens (and saves) Sketch files as well
Might be worth pointing out that this is thanks to Sketch publishing specs[0] for their format, making it easy to write importers/exporters for. As far as I know Figma has yet to do this, so anything that reads Figma files is likely reverse engineered and prone to breakage when Figma inevitably changes their undocumented format.
If I were searching for a Figma alternative, its file format being documented would be a priority because otherwise, one is subjecting themselves to some degree of lock-in.
[0]: https://developer.sketch.com/file-format/
If I were searching for a Figma alternative, its file format being documented would be a priority because otherwise, one is subjecting themselves to some degree of lock-in.
[0]: https://developer.sketch.com/file-format/
Their specs help, but we also support their old format which was basically a dump. We had to reverse engineer it.
Also, we'll import from Figma this fall. You're right, it's never easy. It's a bug valley of countless files that render a little distorted.
Also, we'll import from Figma this fall. You're right, it's never easy. It's a bug valley of countless files that render a little distorted.
hadn't heard of it before but looks pretty sweet, esp since it's free
Sketch user since day 1, love it. Affinity Designer is great too but feels bloated and less intuitive, esp. when you only create for the Web.
I really miss the early days of Sketch (DrawIt, anyone?)
As a developer it's been a bittersweet journey to see Sketch grow to be so popular amongst designers.
In 2012 I was excited to "buy" Sketch for $50, but I am less enthused to subscribe at $100/year. At this point I'm looking for a more lightweight and longer-lived solution. Figma is a nice alternative but the price is likely only going up from here.
As a developer it's been a bittersweet journey to see Sketch grow to be so popular amongst designers.
In 2012 I was excited to "buy" Sketch for $50, but I am less enthused to subscribe at $100/year. At this point I'm looking for a more lightweight and longer-lived solution. Figma is a nice alternative but the price is likely only going up from here.
Are we already abandoning ship? I wouldn't think Adobe is going to pull the plug or anything too drastic, Right?
Btw, I've been a happy Affinity [Designer, Photo, Publisher] user for many years now. Can't even believe I'm still getting updates with my years old licences. +1
Btw, I've been a happy Affinity [Designer, Photo, Publisher] user for many years now. Can't even believe I'm still getting updates with my years old licences. +1
They will almost certainly experience a mass exodus of their top engineering, design, and leadership talent. They'll never come back from that. So it isn't that figma will turn to crap overnight, but over years it is guaranteed to rot, terrible features will start adding up, and adobe will start doing everything they can to pull you into and trap you in their expensive and crappy ecosystem.
So yeah it's sort of like climate change. Probably ok for now, but you should definitely start making moves to live somewhere else in the next few years.
So yeah it's sort of like climate change. Probably ok for now, but you should definitely start making moves to live somewhere else in the next few years.
It's the principle, this was the first time in 17 years anything threatened Adobe and honestly Figma could have destroyed Adobe within 3 years with the right focus.
Figma threw every single artist and designer in the world that does 2D work under the bus when they could have saved us all and built better tools.
Actually I'd go beyond saying it's the principle, actually now it's personal all the money I spent on Figma, all the hours I spent pushing Figma in organizations and building our workflows around it has just gone to strengthen Adobe's grip on my livelihood.
This might sound dramatic but imagine for a moment how you'd feel if you could only work within your industry if you used VSCode, it was closed source and it cost $60 a month and the only chance of fighting against that had sided with the enemy.
Figma threw every single artist and designer in the world that does 2D work under the bus when they could have saved us all and built better tools.
Actually I'd go beyond saying it's the principle, actually now it's personal all the money I spent on Figma, all the hours I spent pushing Figma in organizations and building our workflows around it has just gone to strengthen Adobe's grip on my livelihood.
This might sound dramatic but imagine for a moment how you'd feel if you could only work within your industry if you used VSCode, it was closed source and it cost $60 a month and the only chance of fighting against that had sided with the enemy.
But this is the thing, it’s not healthy to see Adobe as the permanent enemy. They are a reflection of their people and leadership and this is arguably a sign they are a changing company.
Your analogy once was true with Microsoft and Visual Studio in the 90s. It was the main IDE for Windows development (there was no Linux, not really). And it was expensive. There wasn’t much competition until Java took off.
These days Microsoft isn’t seen as the enemy as often. Github is doing fine for example. Companies can change.
Your analogy once was true with Microsoft and Visual Studio in the 90s. It was the main IDE for Windows development (there was no Linux, not really). And it was expensive. There wasn’t much competition until Java took off.
These days Microsoft isn’t seen as the enemy as often. Github is doing fine for example. Companies can change.
> But this is the thing, it’s not healthy to see Adobe as the permanent enemy
- I used Fireworks every day in my job, they killed it.
- After Effects was a top 3 digital creative tool ever made, they let it rot till it's a janky shadow of its former self, it can't even the timeline without audio glitches making ANY audio work to animation impossible, same can be said for Photoshop, can't even save an image without it trying to force you onto their dropbox competitor.
- They had the perfect entry point tool for multimedia creation with Flash that a whole generation of teens learnt how to express themselves online with and they let parts of it rot because they saw it as nothing more than a videoplayer and enterprise app Java competitor.
How are they not my enemy, we're talking decades of attacks on my workflow at this point.
- I used Fireworks every day in my job, they killed it.
- After Effects was a top 3 digital creative tool ever made, they let it rot till it's a janky shadow of its former self, it can't even the timeline without audio glitches making ANY audio work to animation impossible, same can be said for Photoshop, can't even save an image without it trying to force you onto their dropbox competitor.
- They had the perfect entry point tool for multimedia creation with Flash that a whole generation of teens learnt how to express themselves online with and they let parts of it rot because they saw it as nothing more than a videoplayer and enterprise app Java competitor.
How are they not my enemy, we're talking decades of attacks on my workflow at this point.
Because Adobe is just a shifting group of people over time. It’s not a fixed entity with consistent motives. They bought Figma, you can assume the worst (that’s fair) but it’s equally likely they’re not spending $20b to kill it.
No one is expecting them to kill it.
didn't Apple kill flash by never supporting it on iOS? maybe there is more to the story.
>Apple kill flash by never supporting it on iOS
Apple tried very hard to support Flash on the iPhone. Apple flew out Adobe engineers to help them get it work on mobile. It was a tire fire and that's why Apple killed it. The dysfunction with Flash started before the iPhone, and arguably started with the acquisition of Macromedia.
Apple tried very hard to support Flash on the iPhone. Apple flew out Adobe engineers to help them get it work on mobile. It was a tire fire and that's why Apple killed it. The dysfunction with Flash started before the iPhone, and arguably started with the acquisition of Macromedia.
It was already dying. Every web dev in the world hated it, and so did most of the users. But the worst offense was having proprietary closed source binary that couldn't be audited, running untrusted code on end devices. For instance, if you're on any OS other than Mac or Windows, you'd have a bad time, and often have no option to use flash sites (at the time, it was common to build flash sites even for simple document-style web pages). It was a security nightmare, but it was also a stability nightmare. When I saw Steve Jobs announcement I was so relieved. It was a bold move at the time, iPhone was nowhere near as dominant as it is today.
Microsoft actually cared about the developers. They also cared about the right things from business point of view. Their backwards compatibility is and was always insane.
The irony is that Microsoft gave us freedom, Apple gave us lockdowns.
The irony is that Microsoft gave us freedom, Apple gave us lockdowns.
I disagree pretty strongly with that last statement. Microsoft was the enemy of many developers through the 90s, every startup was in mortal fear that Microsoft would put you out of business by “embrace, extend, extinguish”. They were far worse than Apple in their practices. And Apple products were always far more user friendly.
Maybe the difference between Adobe and Microsoft is that the latter has kind of proven itself now. In the meantime is Adobe very busy trying to separate the Open Source version of Magento from the paid version, called Adobe Commerce now. There is only one mention of Magento left on the homepage, about the name change. And is a link to the free version now where to be found.
Enemies are permanent until they die, not until you get tired.
Just about any time a competitive product is swallowed up by a large company that product is left to wither for a year or so before riding off into the sunset.
That’s just not true. Slack is doing fine. Github is doing fine. Red Hat is also doing fine. Etc.
It’s mostly independent designers that feel they can’t afford Adobe level subscriptions.
Or "Don't want to pay for", which includes me. The feature set that I use in my daily driver - Illustrator - has pretty much remained constant since CS2 or thereabouts, but I have to maintain a subscription solely to ensure that I can load files from clients without any concern about incompatability or breakage.
It's quite annoying paying good money for old rope for years and years on end.
It's quite annoying paying good money for old rope for years and years on end.
You'll hate to admit it but I know for a fact that a lot of the tools introduced after CS2 have become indispensable and allow you to get work done faster and more efficiently than back in the day.
From western world perspective, $85/month for a whole suite of powerful apps is absolute peanuts if they are used in a professional setting. An average carpenter probably spends more on tool upgrades each year.
It's just "1 man hour" for a random experienced freelance dude. It's crazy when you think you wouldn't hire this guy for just an hour but 70 hours for just an epic feature. That's already $5950.
$85 / (30 * 24 = 720) hours. Wow so cheap! Now we have some sense of how business is working.
$85 / (30 * 24 = 720) hours. Wow so cheap! Now we have some sense of how business is working.
This is insane in my opinion. People are acting like Figma is now "unclean" for being associated with Adobe.
Adobe has a long, well documented history of screwing their users, e.g. with their switch to this stupid Creative Cloud bullshit.
It's just natural and common sense to look for alternatives if you rely on Figma and don't trust them to be a viable product in the hands of Adobe.
It's just natural and common sense to look for alternatives if you rely on Figma and don't trust them to be a viable product in the hands of Adobe.
So Adobe screwed their users by making them switch to a subscription model like Figma has used from day one?
What? Figma is free for personal use.
I have no problem paying a subscription fee for a corporate account. Having to fork over $100 a month to adobe for personal use is ridiculous. Problem with adobe there was never a free tier
I have no problem paying a subscription fee for a corporate account. Having to fork over $100 a month to adobe for personal use is ridiculous. Problem with adobe there was never a free tier
If you're not the customer you're the product. Figma just cashed you out.
This argument doesn't always work. Big tech like Google will definitely harvest my data and do actually-nefarious things with it that actually affect me, since I use their services, but what is Figma going to do? Sell my data to advertisers? Advertisers already know about me, but they can't reach me anyway, so that data is useless to them except in aggregation.
I'm a product to a lot of companies but not all of them are worth being concerned about.
I'm a product to a lot of companies but not all of them are worth being concerned about.
Ok cool. Still better than forking over 100s of dollars a month for CC
If you're paying hundreds, you're getting ripped off. The full CC suite is $55/month
But that's not the point.
The point is that we dislike Adobe and we don't want to deal with them in any context.
The point is that we dislike Adobe and we don't want to deal with them in any context.
So feels not reals?
No the point is that adobe has shitty business practices and their software is also bloated and crappy and has done fuck all to make my life as a designer easier in the past decade.
The fact that overwhelming amount of designers switched over to figma in the past few years, proves that how people feel about adobe is very real.
Personally I am never thrilled to switch software and endure initial period of relearning how to do my job in a new tool unless there are measurable advantages.
I ve used adobe products since the age of 12 and not having to install their crappy software on any computer since 2019 has been liberating af
The fact that overwhelming amount of designers switched over to figma in the past few years, proves that how people feel about adobe is very real.
Personally I am never thrilled to switch software and endure initial period of relearning how to do my job in a new tool unless there are measurable advantages.
I ve used adobe products since the age of 12 and not having to install their crappy software on any computer since 2019 has been liberating af
If you want to frame it that way.
We have learned experience being hurt by Adobe. Ignoring that would be silly.
We have learned experience being hurt by Adobe. Ignoring that would be silly.
This is HN, where developers diss companies’ decisions while they would do the same. It’s actually kinda hypocritical tbh.
It’s not hypocritical. Most of the comments I saw in the initial thread clearly supported both angles. “Wow that sucks, but huge congrats to the team!”
Looks to me like most people acknowledge that it’s great and natural for the company but just feel distraught by the implication for users.
Looks to me like most people acknowledge that it’s great and natural for the company but just feel distraught by the implication for users.
Typical HN — Anything that goes under the umbrella of big corp gets thrown under the bus, while everyone dreams of selling out one day.
I haven’t seen anyone saying the founders shouldn’t have done this or that they wouldn’t have done the same in their shoes. I’m allowed to be happy for the founders and also hate Adobe and worry about the future of a product I use at the same time
Yes of course, but that’s very different from “I am so traumatized that I’m giving up design as a professional interest” which I’ve seen in a few comments and tweets.
I don’t understand why people pretend a few radical/obscure internet comments is proof of a belief system.
No one is traumatized by this and no one is giving up their profession.
No one is traumatized by this and no one is giving up their profession.
Pretend?
Like read the threads dude, some people are seriously upset to the point of questioning their careers. Believe what you want of course. From the reactions I see on my own corporate slack whenever there are big changes announced, sensitivity and poor coping skills are in abundance.
Like read the threads dude, some people are seriously upset to the point of questioning their careers. Believe what you want of course. From the reactions I see on my own corporate slack whenever there are big changes announced, sensitivity and poor coping skills are in abundance.
It may be the case that some individuals on HN dream of selling out but I'm not convinced those are the same individuals that have an issue with products being purchased by big tech.
Is there a logical fallacy for this? I see it a lot online and it drives me nuts. Just because you can point out that the general viewpoint of a group might be hypocritical, that doesn't mean the individuals themselves are necessarily hypocritical.
(personally I have no opinion on figma/adobe, but this class of comment drives me nuts)
Is there a logical fallacy for this? I see it a lot online and it drives me nuts. Just because you can point out that the general viewpoint of a group might be hypocritical, that doesn't mean the individuals themselves are necessarily hypocritical.
(personally I have no opinion on figma/adobe, but this class of comment drives me nuts)
> Is there a logical fallacy for this?
I call it the "fallacy of the crowd" and I agree it is very common.
I first noticed it enough to give it a name (and then see it everywhere!) about 12 years ago.
Not just online, and it's not always talking about a negative, i.e. apparent hypocrisy or contradiction. It is also used to talk about apparent consequence or implication.
E.g. political campaign speeches often use it. "They" this so "they" that; "they" this and then "they" that; "they" say this yet "they" do that: Different subsets of people referred to by "they" in the same sentence or train of thought.
It's a great rhetorical trick for persuading large numbers of people of something rousing yet wrong.
I call it the "fallacy of the crowd" and I agree it is very common.
I first noticed it enough to give it a name (and then see it everywhere!) about 12 years ago.
Not just online, and it's not always talking about a negative, i.e. apparent hypocrisy or contradiction. It is also used to talk about apparent consequence or implication.
E.g. political campaign speeches often use it. "They" this so "they" that; "they" this and then "they" that; "they" say this yet "they" do that: Different subsets of people referred to by "they" in the same sentence or train of thought.
It's a great rhetorical trick for persuading large numbers of people of something rousing yet wrong.
The classic HN crowd is the one that dreams of building and IPO’ing or selling.
The balance seems to be the “government should own/regulate all businesses I need or hate” crowd. Which feels like younger folks that haven’t thought through that endgame.
The balance seems to be the “government should own/regulate all businesses I need or hate” crowd. Which feels like younger folks that haven’t thought through that endgame.
This is true, but in this case it's somewhat warranted. Part of what I like about Figma is that it's browser based and pretty simple. This is in stark contrast to Adobe's products. I really hope this isn't absorbed into some bloated CC subscription package.
The reason this anti-corporate stuff appears is because the point of sale is also the best moment Figma competitors who no doubt lurk on here have to throw their name out there and convert users.
The reason this anti-corporate stuff appears is because the point of sale is also the best moment Figma competitors who no doubt lurk on here have to throw their name out there and convert users.
Right. Reminds me of a Dan Luu tweet where he mentioned people who used to be idealogically opposed to Amazon eventually joining Amazon with a nice cushy salary.
Since I am a bit older, I came to realize this is no different from the hippie movement in the 70's, whose plenty of people ended up joining Wall Street during the 1980's.
Agreed. Remember HN’s reaction to “I don’t care about cookies” extension being bought by Avast? or BitWarden’s sale and the many alternatives that people started sharing on HN? These kinda of reactions by HN are actually hypocritical tbh.
> Remember HN’s reaction
Who is HN? Is you HN?
Did you add your thoughts about Avast and the acquisition of the browser extension?
If you found a common opinion on that topic, perhaps it's because data harvesting and selling user data is a common pattern associated with similar acquisitions. It's not like people latch onto gloomy conspiracies pulled from the nearest echo chamber, repeating them in unison, swaying to the beat of an HN drum. Is that what you're suggesting?
Who is HN? Is you HN?
Did you add your thoughts about Avast and the acquisition of the browser extension?
If you found a common opinion on that topic, perhaps it's because data harvesting and selling user data is a common pattern associated with similar acquisitions. It's not like people latch onto gloomy conspiracies pulled from the nearest echo chamber, repeating them in unison, swaying to the beat of an HN drum. Is that what you're suggesting?
I'm only part of HN. No I did not write about Avast takeover of the extension; I simply deleted the extension on my own machine.
At the end of the day, "data harvesting and selling user data" is done by programmers. I find it unacceptable that some do it and then come to HN to complain about other people's work.
At the end of the day, "data harvesting and selling user data" is done by programmers. I find it unacceptable that some do it and then come to HN to complain about other people's work.
You're making a huge assumption and generalization that "developers do it, then complain about it". What evidence do you have for this? Sounds to me like you're making things up, then broadly accusing people of those things you made up.
It’s almost like there’s more than one person on this site, with differing opinions. :-D
It is a bit extreme. However they have a history of jacking up prices, bundling things that independent users don’t want bundled, and slowing improvements.
That said, changing doesn’t really make much sense at the moment, it does make sense to think through the point you will change.
That said, changing doesn’t really make much sense at the moment, it does make sense to think through the point you will change.
Opposite anecdote. I used CoolEdit before it was acquired by Adobe and became Adobe Audition. It’s a much better product now and is not bundled with anything else.
Changing may not make sense, but those getting started might want to plant roots elsewhere.
On more than one occasion, I’ve had Adobe customer service reps outright lie in attempts to convince me not to cancel creative cloud.
For example, I wanted to cancel my CC subscription, and when I contacted their terrible chat support (fuck Adobe for not letting me cancel it on my own? and they offered me two months free. I said no. They upped it to four months free, and I specially asked if I could cancel after the four free months if I wanted. The Adobe customer service person said “of course, no proven”. Four months later, I try to cancel and guess what? They are saying I agreed to a yearly subscription and I have eight months left. I explain that I specifically asked about that four months ago, and ask him to consult the conversation logs. They insist they don’t keep logs and there is nothing they can do. After some back and forth, the rep SENDS ME a excerpt that supports their argument (the excerpt was taken out of context and was meaningless on its own of course).
I immediately pointed out that they had just confirmed the chat log of the previous conversation did exist, that they were lying, and I wanted to speak to a supervisor. The service person quickly agreed to cancel my sub without penalty, said their supervisor wasn’t available and disconnected.
Single-handedly one of the most under-handed CS experiences I’ve ever had, and I’ve come across countless other stories similar to my own. Adobe is scum.
For example, I wanted to cancel my CC subscription, and when I contacted their terrible chat support (fuck Adobe for not letting me cancel it on my own? and they offered me two months free. I said no. They upped it to four months free, and I specially asked if I could cancel after the four free months if I wanted. The Adobe customer service person said “of course, no proven”. Four months later, I try to cancel and guess what? They are saying I agreed to a yearly subscription and I have eight months left. I explain that I specifically asked about that four months ago, and ask him to consult the conversation logs. They insist they don’t keep logs and there is nothing they can do. After some back and forth, the rep SENDS ME a excerpt that supports their argument (the excerpt was taken out of context and was meaningless on its own of course).
I immediately pointed out that they had just confirmed the chat log of the previous conversation did exist, that they were lying, and I wanted to speak to a supervisor. The service person quickly agreed to cancel my sub without penalty, said their supervisor wasn’t available and disconnected.
Single-handedly one of the most under-handed CS experiences I’ve ever had, and I’ve come across countless other stories similar to my own. Adobe is scum.
Adobe has a long history of increased prices with stagnating products, the entire creative suite subscription pricing model is just so user hostile. I am not necessarily against subscriptions, but the complexity of the packages and dark patterns of hiding cancelation fees on monthly plans and offering reductions when someone tries to cancel is just a bad experience. For the vast majority of users core products like photoshop or lightroom have not really added any major new feature justifying ongoing subscription pricing being the only option.
Looking around for a life raft is just common sense when a big tech company acquires a product you use. Even if you don't necessarily jump on it immediately. Odds are pretty good it will one or more of: 1) Stagnate, 2) Be closed down, 3) Become much worse.
Not at all. Maybe if adobe didn’t have such a terrible reputation it would be different.
If MBAs really are for the intelligent, they'd leave Figma well alone and maybe put an Adobe logo somewhere and keep the team doing as they did, making money and keeping customers genuinely happy.
...But I have a better chance of finding the 'z' in 'Susan'
...But I have a better chance of finding the 'z' in 'Susan'
You don't pay $20B for a $400M revenue product with 1200 employees to pay if you're planning to keep things as they are. Best case scenario is that they accept that figma is superior and let Xd die instead. That said, they'll definitely change pricing and spend eng resources on integrations with their other crap. Oh, and you'll need an Adobe account for sure.
Creative Cloud -- need I say more?
The only thing wrong with Creative Cloud is the cancellation fees. Other than that it's an awesome software bundle, and the pricing is really fair for what it is, I think. For example, Adobe After Effects is so powerful that just learning it well can be the start of a career.
The individual Adobe products themselves are quite good; it's CC and all the processes it insists on running that you can't get rid of that I don't like.
For real.
Although I do remember how much i hated that “flip horizontally” meant exactly the opposite thing in Ps and Ai
I believe this attitude is local to HN. I don't see employers ditching Figma, they are locked in.
We've been building this design tool (https://uizard.io/) for developers and non-designers alike.
Defo not meant to replace Figma — it's built as an easier / quicker alternative for folks that need to iterate fast.
> So long Figma! Get Uizard Pro for free for a month with the coupon code Ligma
"You son of a bitch...I'm in."
"You son of a bitch...I'm in."
hahaha love it! <3
I've found some Figma alternatives just before Adobe acquired it and I'd tried many many tools like Miro, Whimsical, Balsamiq, etc.
The first top of mind when looking for an alternative is the easy and quick wireframe tool. Then I started searching and among thousands of alternatives, this one impressed me the most - Visly. It's not a 1:1 replacement for Figma, but it helps me solve a lot of problems such as Figma did.
Ready-to-use templates, UI wireframe, prototype.
https://visily.ai/
Have been passively looking for someone that recommend Visily in these design tool threads, so that I know I'm not alone. It's a pretty solid design tool with tons of AI features that managed to help a technical guy like me make stunning UI. Definitely recommend trying it out.
[deleted]
People rave about Figma but I never really "got" it, compared to Sketch. Granted, I'm on a Mac, am only in Sketch for 2-3 hours a week, typically work alone and generally use it to re-arrange website items and hack up what a new element on a site might look like in the current site structure.
The few times I've tried to use Figma, I walk away frustrated by the fact that I can't easily cut things out of an image that I've imported/pasted in. I thought I was insane at first for not being able to figure this out but after searching around, it sounded like this is a feature that is missing. The workaround is spending way too much effort making multiple copies of your image and then cropping each individual element you want control over moving. Pretty absurd but this my need here has to be an edge case, even though it doesn't seem like one. I suppose if 99% of people are designing interfaces natively in Figma and aren't using screenshots as a starting point, this isn't an issue.
The few times I've tried to use Figma, I walk away frustrated by the fact that I can't easily cut things out of an image that I've imported/pasted in. I thought I was insane at first for not being able to figure this out but after searching around, it sounded like this is a feature that is missing. The workaround is spending way too much effort making multiple copies of your image and then cropping each individual element you want control over moving. Pretty absurd but this my need here has to be an edge case, even though it doesn't seem like one. I suppose if 99% of people are designing interfaces natively in Figma and aren't using screenshots as a starting point, this isn't an issue.
With regards to editing an imported image, you’re looking for a bitmap editor like Photoshop. Figma is vector based and definitely made for digital experience designers who need to collaborate with large cross-functional teams.
So who’s up for building a better than it was replacement dual license open source version of Figma?
Ironically, we can design the whole thing in Figma.
Ironically, we can design the whole thing in Figma.
Miro is a good FigJam alternative, though not as disigner oriented as Figma, more for whiteboarding / diagramming.
I don't understand business model of the company behind Penpot (Kaleidos). Their products doesn't offer anything paid but I see a button "Invest in us". For me this tells that their products will eventually become non-free and only open-source in a way that it can export SVG.
I've been using Framer.
I only recently started learning Figma and it was for the express reason of wanting to build apps via Bravo Studio because I’m also not a programmer.
Do any of these alternatives have integration with Bravo Studio?
Do any of these alternatives have integration with Bravo Studio?
Nice opportunistic post ;-) Well done. I must admit: I still love Figma, even if they've joined the Adobe family (I've just cancelled my Photoshop subscription btw, an unrelated move).
I think the saddest part of the Figma acquisition isn't the possible death of a tool I enjoyed using, it's the death of my interest in learning more about design.
I have been an engineer for many years and started to do more design work with Figma. I even enrolled in a design bootcamp. Figma inspired me a lot and sparked an interest in design.
This acquisition has killed it for me.
I have been an engineer for many years and started to do more design work with Figma. I even enrolled in a design bootcamp. Figma inspired me a lot and sparked an interest in design.
This acquisition has killed it for me.
That’s exactly how I feel. I tried to use some Adobe’s products but I failed because all of them have a steep learning cure and their UI/UX are complicated too. By contrast, Figma made my life easier.
Despite what Adobe wants you to think, design is bigger than them.
Keep at it, maybe read up on physical product design where there is less tool talk.
Keep at it, maybe read up on physical product design where there is less tool talk.
We can try https://www.visily.ai
Here are some more alternatives with comparisons between them https://uxtools.co/tools/design
Penpot should be added to this list.
Penpot should be added to this list.
> First and foremost, at this time – Figma will remain an independent (separate from Creative Cloud) company. That much was said in the announcement from the CEO, Dylan Field.
lol yeah right.
lol yeah right.
Missing both of my favorites....Framer and Justinmind
Maybe it's time to switch to 1.0?
https://0ver.org/
https://0ver.org/
[deleted]
Well, there's still Gimp and Inkscape if you aren't afraid of working outside of a browser
Can someone explain to me why Adobe acquisition of Figma is considered bad?
Adobe has a history of using dark patterns to keep people subscribed to their products such as hidden fees for cancelling.
Hehe, is anyone still using InVision? (honest interest)
Anyone seen that open source version called Ligma?
What’s Ligma?
From some cursory review, it seems pretty good! And there's now effort underway to be able to import Figma files.
edit: okay, I've gotten signed up with penpot, made rudimentary sketches, it seems solid and promising. I'm now a fan and I think this seals the deal for me, I'm glad that it was an easy decision. And I will give them the benefit of the doubt when it's not exactly up to par because 1) they seem to be new and characterize themselves as still being in beta and 2) it's self-hostable OSS and the inherent security of this offering is something I value deeply.