I've stopped using Adobe. So yes, there's some Schadenfreude in watching ArtCraft rebuild familiar Adobe workflows as free, open-source applications with the help of AI coding agents.
But the part that interests me goes beyond Adobe. Affinity has already put photo editing, vector design and page layout into one free application, with optional paid AI on top. ArtCraft is approaching the same pressure on software pricing from another direction: making the implementation itself open and easier to reproduce.
Free core software, paid services around it. That's where I think this is going.
Seven Adobe-style apps, built with AI
ArtCraft's Crafting Apps page lists seven free, native, open-source applications written in Rust. They cover a fairly familiar set of jobs.
| App | Familiar Adobe workflow |
|---|---|
| PhotoCraft | Photoshop image editing |
| VectorCraft | Illustrator vector drawing |
| FilmCraft | Premiere Pro video editing |
| LightCraft | Lightroom photo development |
| PdfCraft | Acrobat PDF work |
| EffectCraft | After Effects motion graphics |
| DesignCraft | InDesign page layout |
FilmCraft's roadmap describes parallel work with Opus 5.5 and reports one development block in which six agents moved its feature checklist from roughly 62% to 72% in about six hours. That measures coverage on the project's own checklist, not how close it is to replacing Premiere on every job.
Even with that distinction, the scale is striking. A team can divide a mature application's behaviour into specifications, tests and implementation tasks, then have agents work through those tasks in parallel. The roadmap's bottlenecks include full disks, overloaded builds and integration conflicts. Very ordinary engineering problems, at a rather unusual pace.
Free alternatives have existed for years. What I'm watching here is the amount of work needed to build another one, and how quickly a small team can attempt something this broad.
Affinity understood the message early
Affinity makes the business model much easier to picture. The capabilities previously split across Photo, Designer and Publisher now live in one application: photo editing, vector design and page layout. Broadly, the Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign combination.
The core Pixel, Vector and Layout tools are free. A free Canva account is enough. The integrated Canva AI tools are optional and require a premium Canva plan.
That's a useful distinction: the creative software itself is free; the AI service is a paid extra. You can use the editor without subscribing to the AI layer.
Canva describes a model supported by paid services such as AI and collaboration around free core tools. To me, Affinity understood where this was heading early. There are services worth charging for without charging everyone ongoing rent for the editor itself.
Adobe makes the irony hard to miss
Adobe agreed to a $150 million settlement over subscription disclosure and cancellation allegations, while denying wrongdoing. The final judgment was entered in April.
Against that background, free alternatives have an obvious appeal. And there's something satisfying about AI coding agents helping build competitors to software people have spent years renting. The thing being automated now includes the work needed to make the application itself.
A huge proprietary codebase has been expensive to reproduce. I expect that protection to weaken as agents get better at turning known behaviour into working implementations. A business built around charging for access to familiar tools will have to give people a stronger reason to stay.
There is still implementation work to finish
ArtCraft's apps are early. PhotoCraft identifies gaps in professional workflows and plug-in compatibility. EffectCraft can't yet open After Effects .aep projects or run its plug-ins. Those are concrete tasks still to solve, and they matter to people switching existing work over.
The projects describe a clean-room approach using public specifications and observed behaviour. EffectCraft's contributor rules prohibit reading or disassembling Adobe application bundles and copying proprietary assets. That's a documented development method, not blanket legal clearance.
Neither point changes my view of the direction. Building the tools is getting more accessible. Compatibility, performance and maintenance are where more of the remaining work sits.
Free tools, paid services, software you can change
PhotoCraft exposes the same commands through its interface, command line and MCP server. An agent can operate the editor through the same underlying commands as a person. With open source, the application itself can also be adapted.
That opens up something I find much more interesting than choosing between subscription tiers: asking for a workflow tailored to a particular job, then changing the software to provide it. An editor becomes a starting point for what you need.
If I were building a creative software business around this, I'd look at paid AI compute, hosted collaboration, storage, support and custom integrations. Those services have ongoing costs and can provide ongoing value. The core tools can be free.
Affinity already shows what that separation looks like. ArtCraft shows why the cost of building the tools deserves another look.
This is the future of software: free tools you can keep using, with paid services you choose because they add something.
Sources linked inline: ArtCraft's site and repositories, Affinity/Canva, and the Adobe settlement documents and statement. Research snapshot: October 9, 2026.