So clearly it is misleading, because what they mean is definitely along the lines of "we include GIMP while Photoshop costs $999".

How is it misleading when the sentence includes the word "alternative" from the boot? Are you misreading it and blaming the author?

I don't think that's misleading. There are a lot of people out there who aren't aware that free software exists that provides a lot of the functionality of software that costs $999. They clearly say "alternatives to".

I was trying to make a point about how funny the parent post was, saying it isn't misleading while misunderstanding it and thinking that it means "paid-for software that would have cost $5,000". But perhapes I didn't understand the comment itself.

I personally think the messaging is fine, but the above comment was a clear example that some people could get it wrong.

But gimp doesn't provide the functionality of software that costs $999. That's why it's misleading. It's probably more like Affinity Photo which is £68.

Which, incidentally, is the software they compare their offering to. The only Adobe software they mention in the comparison is Adobe Premier Pro.

Whole Affinity pack is 10% of Photoshop while providing more functionality (just Affinity Designer handles vectors like Illustrator while edits pixels as well).

Gimp finally has non-destructive editing, so is almost in same category as those two. And Krita is good for pixels as well.

What's misleading about that? Did you miss the words "alternatives to" in the statement?