My point is that The Gimp IS as good as Photoshop. A lot of FOSS alternatives are (though to play my own Devil's Advocate, I've seen plenty of applications that were both ugly and unusuable). Being "good" doesn't mean you have to put the least amount of effort into it as possible. If the philosophy of paying for otherwise free software is, "It's basically the same, but it does most of the work for me," then it's lost the battle.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I attach value to effort, though yes I do have the time to put forth the effort to use an application that's worth more than the $0 pricetag, where the benefits to using something "easy" that performs the exact same operations is not worth $200-600, even if only by comparison.
Why does it have to be a question of how complicated it is? That's lazy reasoning. It's about cost-effectiveness.
So what you're basically saying is that you'd rather pay for a product just because it's easier to use than the free one? That's like going out to buy a new car just because it's comfortable, when you already own three or four perfectly good alternatives that you only have to put the effort into driving. Maybe one doesn't have AC, maybe another one doesn't have a radio, but they all get you from point-A to point-B. And you don't have to spend any money. But you'd rather spend the money.