Within the past couple of weeks (at the time of writing), it almost feels like the simulation broke and exclusive, proprietary software died overnight. We went from a handful of Photoshop clones to clones of the entire Adobe Creative Suite, Microsoft Office, and more. PhotoCraft alone has been forked over 9,000 times (Save your Dragon Ball jokes for The Tournament of Obscure Millennial References). That doesn't establish quality, but it shows the interest. Like it or not, these AI-generated clones are here to stay, and they’re going to change the software landscape.
Many are open source, yet copy proprietary software whose design philosophy often conflicts with those principles. Beyond questions of piracy and legality, what happens to innovation when we're copying existing solutions, warts and all? Who challenges paradigms when they're broken but deeply entrenched?
There are benefits, too. “Open source” is attracting positive attention and being associated with professional-grade software, even though many “vibe-coded” clones still lack feature parity. For Inkscape, this presents both an opportunity and a challenge. There's more to creative software than having all the right buttons in all the familiar places.
A little disclaimer: I'm not exploring the legality or ethics of these clones or whether you should use them. I'm interested in their implications for innovation, quality, sustainability, and existing open-source projects.
When familiarity becomes the standard
One issue I’ve observed with these “clones” is the risk of copying poorly thought-out designs and even deliberate hindrances. Consider the emphasis on compatibility with Adobe’s proprietary formats, rather than making open standards foundational.
Compatibility matters for existing work and collaboration. But supporting an open standard isn't the same as building around one. If open formats are just another option rather than a core principle, have we challenged the assumptions we're copying?
There needs to be more motivation than looking at a predatory price tag and thinking “Man, that sucks.” But blaming the tools would be misplaced.
Why? Because AI isn’t responsible for bad practices. It reinforces them when we use it to reproduce those practices without questioning them.
My stance on AI is much like my stance on running water: it’s a technology. A tool. Its usefulness depends on our choices. If the goal is simply to reproduce an application, who's stopping to say “That’s probably not a good idea”? A clone isn’t necessarily trying to improve on its parent. It’s trying to be the parent, warts and all.
Then there's the old myth of ease of use. Proprietary tools are supposedly “easier” and “better” because “everyone is using them”, right? But popularity doesn't equate to ease of use. Sometimes that reputation exists because of popularity. Since circles make for good wheels, these ideas really get around.
Take VectorCraft, with its focus on recreating Adobe Illustrator’s capabilities and workflows. Objectively, not a bad move, right? Its developers are also looking to improve upon Illustrator in areas like performance, reliability, and automation. BUT should we reproduce Illustrator's underlying assumptions simply because the industry accepts it as the standard bearer?
VectorCraft supports SVG, even describing it as first-class, which is positive. Yet its native document format is its own JSON-based format. That's not inherently bad, but the distinction isn't whether SVG can be opened or exported. It's whether an open standard sits at the heart of the application's design philosophy.
Contrast this with Inkscape, built from the ground up around SVG. It's Inkscape's native format, and compatibility with the standard has been a core principle since its inception, shaping its design and features. Artwork created in Inkscape can be used on the web, modified in other SVG-compatible applications, or processed through workflows without being locked into a proprietary document format. An open standard can be a foundation for innovation rather than an afterthought.
The legacy open-source creative apps like Inkscape, Pinta, GIMP, and Krita have communities that debate what's useful. New features aren't generally implemented just because somebody thought they might be cool (trust me, I would know, I've tried :). The model isn't perfect, but it forces us to ask: “Who needs this, and how would they best be served?”
Quick ain’t always quality
Just because something is developed more rapidly doesn’t mean it’s automatically good, or bad, for that matter. An AI agent can run tests and claim feature parity, but the real test comes when you put the software into the hands of real folks doing real work in the real world.
In a hands-on review by Creative Bloq, PhotoCraft's automatic selection and masking were less precise than Photoshop's, while filters failed to preview. These details separate features that exist from features that are useful.
Granted, these are early-stage applications, and such problems can be improved. But who serves as the bouncer in this club? Who’s checking the AI’s homework, so to speak?
Inkscape has an established culture of human review, testing, feedback, and iteration. When I came on board as the bug admin for the Bug Accelerator program, I was given one mandate: Make sure Inkscape doesn’t suck.
You can’t simply hand that responsibility to a tool. Understanding what makes software genuinely useful comes from human experiences and judgement, even with AI in the pipeline. My concern is that we’re heading toward a time when all we ask is “Does this look like what I’m familiar with? Good enough.”
But producing something that works today is only part of the challenge. What happens tomorrow?
Can it stick around?
Everyone and their cousin is asking this question, but compared to open-source software that's been around for decades, it's valid.
AI can generate, review, and improve code quickly, potentially avoiding bloat and dependency hell. It could help produce solid software with a hefty lifespan.
But… there’s a catch. Reliable long-term results still require human oversight, input, direction, and discipline. AI-generated code can come with unnecessary dependencies, over-engineered solutions, and comments that overexplain every-single-component-part-of-the-codebase. When maintainers don't understand what they're maintaining, those problems accumulate.
Coders may be reluctant to work on projects where few understand past decisions. You can ask a tool to examine its work, but you can’t hop on a video call with Claude, pick its brains about a problem, and chat about your day while you’re at it. Without people to pass knowledge along, sustaining the project becomes harder.
There's also dependency on AI providers. The ArtCraft suite has relied on Claude Opus for generating code, with its roadmaps estimating work in AI agent-hours. What happens if prices change, services disappear, or a developer’s account gets banned?
Sure, the software is open source and can live on without its original tools. But if maintainers rely on paid AI services to understand and edit it, the project is at greater risk when those services disappear. Its future depends on its developer base, not merely its license.
A thriving community needs an ecosystem
You can add a million features practically overnight, but can you build a mature ecosystem?
By mature, I mean more than the application: accumulated knowledge, extensions, workarounds, third-party tools, tutorials, and communities sharing experiences.
Consider Ink/Stitch, an independently developed embroidery platform that provides specialized tooling within Inkscape. It brings more than code: fonts, custom formats, forums, and places where users exchange ideas. That foundation doesn’t grow overnight. We’re talking years of specialized knowledge shaped by real use cases.
And this is only one example. Inkscape is used in 3D printing, web design, desktop publishing, marketing, and so many other areas; it would take a whole blog series for me to cover it all.
When someone chooses Inkscape, they’re not just coming for features. They’re gaining access to experiences, solutions, and expertise. An open licence doesn't instantly create that community.
That community also matters for people who can't afford otherwise. There will always be developers who can’t pay for tokens to generate their ideas in the hottest new programming language but still want to make something amazing and contribute to the world. Projects like Inkscape, GIMP, and other stalwarts give people a place to hone their skills, share what they know, and potentially make a living. Open source has value in principle but also in actual monetary terms.
Can the clones eventually build ecosystems of their own? Sure, but they have to earn it. Somebody still needs to provide a place for those who need to hear “Welcome back” and not “What would you like to do today?” (Kudos to you if you got that reference).
Why Inkscape still matters
We can appreciate these efforts without entrusting our future to a trend because it lands features quickly. Creative freedom rests on long-term trust and relationships built through experience, not excitement.
But here's something I don't want lost in all that excitement: established open-source applications like Inkscape don't merely deserve to survive this new wave of software development. They deserve to continue being embraced for what they bring to the table.
Inkscape isn't simply an alternative for people who can't afford Illustrator, or a fallback for those avoiding the latest AI-generated clone. It's a mature, capable creative application with its own philosophy. Its commitment to SVG, community, ecosystem, and independence are reasons to choose it, not just reasons to keep it around.
Perhaps this excitement can do some good. If people associate open source with professional creative work, Inkscape can demonstrate what it's been building for years. It doesn't need these clones to fail to remain relevant. VectorCraft could become an excellent Illustrator replacement without diminishing what Inkscape brings to the table. Creators benefit from meaningful choices.
The foundation will be challenged, and frankly, I think that's a challenge worth welcoming. The question isn’t whether or not we should embrace AI in software development. Let’s be real, that ship has already sailed for many. The question is whether we’re bold enough to acknowledge that what’s tried, tested, and proven stable will still carry its own weight as we enter this uncharted future.
Practical Tip: Test the workflow, not the feature list
Here's something I'd encourage you to try this week: take an application you already use, or one you've been curious about, and put it through a real-world test.
Don't just look for familiar buttons or count how many features it claims to have. Give it something meaningful to do.
Open a project, make some edits, save it, and reopen it. Try exporting your work and opening it in another application. Pay attention to what survives, what breaks, and what makes the experience easier or harder than you expected.
If something doesn't work, consider reporting it to the developers with clear steps to reproduce the problem. That's how the feedback loop gets stronger, and it's one way we can help make the software we rely on better for everyone.
Remember, the best application isn't necessarily the one that does the most things. It's the one that helps you get your work done.
Here’s what I’ve published recently:
ADMIN Magazine
Automating File Intake on a Linux Server
My latest ADMIN Magazine article walks through building an automated, server-side drop zone for processing incoming files. Using ClamAV, LibreOffice, ImageMagick, and systemd, the workflow scans, normalizes, versions, organizes, and archives files without requiring constant manual intervention.
If you want to stay in this lane
I’ve written some related articles in this series that you might find interesting if you liked this one:
What happens when open-source takes itself seriously?
A look at how open-source projects are raising their standards through usability, governance, infrastructure, and professional development practices.
Open-Source Owes Us Nothing, And That's Good
Why open-source's independence from commercial obligations creates opportunities for innovation, preservation, and long-term technological freedom.
-
A reflection on diversity, choice, and why different creative tools and ideas can coexist without diminishing one another.
Working with us
At RolandiXor Media Inc., we blend design and open-source thinking for our clients.
Elsewhere
- Mastodon: mastodon.social/@rolandixor
- Threads: @rolandixor
- X: @rolandixor
Support this work
If this writing has been useful and you’d like to help sustain it:
→ https://ko-fi.com/rolandixor
Catch you in the next Roll Out!
