A commodity's primary characteristic is fungibility.

If "image editing software" is actually a commodity, then it means GIMP and Photoshop are fungible. They are not.

Gimp has been free for decades, same with Inkscape (edit: Inkscape is actually only 19).

Probably not what most pros are using, but perfectly acceptable tools.

true. but as you said, most aren't which is the counterpoint to op's claim that stuff get's free because of commodification.

Gimp is a gimp. Just plain horrible UI-UX. Not intuitive at all, at best a terrible monstroisity.

Adobe's UX is far better than Gimp and Inkscape. It is the "it just works" equivalent of design tools.

Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves.

The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.

Adobe doesn't count hobbyists as a core user segment; why would they? Hobbyists don't need Adobe CC any more than somebody looking to multiply 2 numbers would need Excel 365.

The hobbyist market is already served by Photopea, Canva, Snapseed and many others.

Some Hobbyists still want to push the envelope.

Think the artist equivalent of the guy building a AI controlled sentry gun for shooting squirrels with water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPgqfnKG_T4

yea, thx for the free photoshop shill, i guess?

A commodity is fungible.

Unless you're arguing that GIMP and Photoshop are treated as identical software by the market, image editing software can not be a commodity.

i was refering to the attribute of "readily available in many stores" with my usage of commodity. but you might be right too