I use The GIMP on a daily basis. I use it for everything. I used it to create the header image above. And it all began many years ago when I wanted to pirate Photoshop but my internet connection was not good enough to handle the download. I found the GNU image manipulation program on one of those CDs that came with computer magazines. Then I learned how to use it.

The GIMP was all I had for almost a decade. So I stuck with it. I like the mascot, Wilber, which was created in 1997 by Tuomas Kuosmanen.

But I understand why most people hesitate to even try the program. Technically, however, there’s nothing wrong with The GIMP.

But somehow the project continues to stay behind, way behind the competition.

I’d wager quite a few internet points that The GIMP simply has a marketing problem.

But see for yourself.

“The GIMP needs to change its name”

Does The GIMP really need a name change? It has had its name since 1995 when the first version was released. Some people seem to be put off by the acronym which simply stands for “GNU image manipulation program”.

The term “GNU” itself is a recursive acronym and stands for “GNU’s not UNIX”. The GNU project maintains many programs that have become a standard in the open source software world, especially in the Linux domain.

The negative connotation with the word “gimp” has probably become relevant again only in recent years with the rise of online pornography. People are connecting the dots.

At this point it seems to be a meme of some kind. But still, the GIMP marketing department (if it even exists) might have to reconsider their stance now that Glimpse saw the light of day only a few months ago.

The rebranded Glimpse Image Editor team explained their reasoning behind the fork:

I’d like to propose renaming GIMP, due to the baggage behind the name. The most modern and often used version of the word “gimp” is an ableist insult. This is also the colloquial usage of the word. In addition to the pain of the definition, there’s also the marketability issue. Acronyms are difficult to remember, and they end up pronounced instead of read as their parts. “GIMP” does not give a hint towards the function of the app, and it’s hard to market something that’s either used as an insult or a sex reference.

The GIMP competing against a renamed version of itself? How is this useful for the project goal of creating a free and open source program for manipulating images?

Personally, I don’t like the name. But I don’t care as long as the software works. After many years of trying to get friends and family to use The GIMP, I could convince maybe five people to actually give it a try.

When I mention that Photoshop CS 2.0 is still available somewhere for free, they make me fetch it. These are amateurs, otherwise they wouldn’t ask me. But even amateurs just know that Photoshop is the right tool for the job. That’s good marketing.

Most people I’ve talked to don’t even know that The GIMP exists. It’s shocking if you consider that the project has been in the works for almost 25 years now.

“They teach GIMP; School is so dumb”

The following tweet is mainly a critique of the school but it contains a stab at The GIMP as well. With 2000+ likes and 70+ comments, this tweet has gained quite some traction.

The GIMP comes with a detailed manual but you have to read it in order to make the most of the software.

While it seems like a great idea to use free and open software in the education process, the usage of a niche-product is short-sighted at best.

Without proper training (of teachers), students will not learn much at all in the time-constrained context of typical schools.

This is one of the opportunities to generate revenue for the project: commercial application support. Schools are not the ideal prospects to make money from but the general idea doesn’t seem so bad.

Red Hat came from nothing and made itself into a multi-million company by building open source software and giving support to their paying customers. Even Canonical is doing okay these days with the many products that their Ubuntu Linux distribution has spawned over the years.

“They said it was like Photoshop”

This is actually one of the replies to the previous tweet roasting the school system.

The GIMP has never been perceived as “intuitive”. The main argument was always that it’s free software. It’s free so we shouldn’t complain. But if you’ve used the GNU manipulation program, you know that it’s sometimes hard to navigate. I’ve been using it for more than ten years and I still don’t feel 100% confident with the software.

One of my main gripes with The GIMP stems from compatibility issues. “They said it was like Photoshop”–I’ve muttered those words as well when I failed to open a client’s PSD an hour before the deadline.

It works most of the time but it seems to fail me whenever I try to get actual work done in a timely manner.

The GIMP is not like Photoshop. The UI design follows totally different directions and there is also no consistency in naming the tools available in both programs.

If you learn to use only one of them, it’s going to be hard to get used to using the other one later on. Trust me, I tried.

And I’m not alone.

“I wouldn’t tell anyone to use GIMP”

I also wouldn’t tell anyone to use The GIMP. At least not professionally and if the budget allows for commercial alternatives. Since Adobe switched to a subscription model, the software has become more affordable. A monthly payment doesn’t sting as much.

“I’d pay for The GIMP.” — Frederik Kreijmborg

There, I said it. (Please don’t quote me out of context.)

Seriously, if The GIMP were available as a commercial product I wouldn’t automatically discard it just because it costs money to use it. Sadly, not many open source projects go that route to sustain the development of their products.

Sure, you can donate to these projects. But that’s not a real business model.

“GIMP sucks”

Another one complaining about the clunky UI. I can relate to the one-hand-tied-behind-your-back-thing but I don’t think that Photoshop is doing any better in that regard.

The internet is full of hate for The GIMP; if you search for “gimp sucks”, you’ll see 😢

One GUI to rule them all

Did you notice that none of those tweets above mentioned the inner workings of The GIMP? Most of them are concerned with the user interface, the user experience, or the name and the problems that might be connected with it.

The GIMP is a great tool if you know how to use it. Nobody is really questioning the software quality itself but rather the philosophy behind the program (“we’ve done it this way since the beginning”) and the approach to usability (“we’ve got a better method”).

GIMP 2.10.14 screenshot: standard GUI with the gray theme

The actual image files created with The GIMP are not worse than those produced by commercial software. They’re all more or less standards-compliant. The GIMP is used by professionals around the globe, it just has a visibility problem. Bad marketing.

The official Twitter account is pretty active but besides that you only read about The GIMP in niche publications that never reach the general public. It’s not like your elder-ish neighbor wouldn’t love to have a free program to edit vacation photos for his wife’s album; it’s just that he’s going to have trouble to find The GIMP.

And if he finds the program, he might not understand how to use it. The GUI is quite overwhelming for first-time users (and seasoned users alike).

Open Source has a marketing problem

It’s not just The GIMP that’s failing to really make an impact as an alternative to Photoshop or other commercial solutions. Take Linux for example: the usage statistics tell it all, and it’s not a very uplifting story.

Almost nobody uses open source operating systems. We’re talking about free operating systems here, as opposed to those that you pay for. But even though wonderful distributions like Solus exist for free, not many people are interested.

The marketing departments of the global players in the software industry, including the image editing category, dominate the internet with professionally managed social media teams and top-notch news coverage.

Realistically, The GIMP never stood a chance against the deep pockets of a company like Adobe. Nobody is to blame for that, though.

I’m glad that they tried, and I’m glad that the software receives regular updates still.

There’s light at the end of the tunnel

The GIMP isn’t all bad. Many people cherish the free Photoshop alternative. A heart-warming collection of positive tweets about the GNU image manipulation program follows:

The few people that use open source software often seem to be more attached to it. The social spirit on which all of these projects are based on seems to go right through the cold layer of bits and bytes, and right into the hearts of loyal FOSS users.

The GIMP really makes for a nice gift. Too bad that CDs with home-printed labels are not en vogue anymore.

This is the kind of tweet that makes me hopeful every once in a while. Open source software powering a newspaper? That’s great news, literally.

The other programs mentioned (LibreOffice, Scribus, Inkscape) all suffer from the same popularity issues that The GIMP has. Sure, LibreOffice has become a viable alternative even for casual users, but if you look through the support threads regarding LibreOffice’s .DOCX compatibility… well, it’s not looking too good in that department either.

Why do we not see this anymore? Open source companies creating open source products and selling open source products: how and when did this business idea die?

This one doesn’t need an explanation. I support every word in this tweet 👏