You could probably do it in Gimp too, but it'd take some time. It's tedious but still possible.

Additionally, not all magic wands and removal tools are created equal. Plenty don't have feather options for selecting OR feather options for color replacement/erasing. I could replace the background with transparent in Paint.net in five seconds, if I was fine with a giant ugly halo of grey gradient around the whole thing.

Mackerel, I'm not even talking about the magic wand.
I need to find the video.

Anyways, if you can do it with photoshop, the rule of thumb is that you can do it in other programs.

What was that photoshop tutorial series that involved that guy roleplaying as a guy that lead a horrible life, and commented heavily about it during his tutorials?

Reverse that, and sure.
Photoshop has a shitload of tools, filters, options, algorithms, etc that other programs don't.
If you can do it in another program, you can do it in Photoshop.

Photoshop purists would like to believe that they have stumbled upon the unrivaled greatest thing ever.
No, other programs can't be good, just Photoshop. This is why no other company is competing with Adobe, and why all of their products are outrageously overpriced. The more you support a monopoly, the worse it gets for everyone else.

The video in which the guy does something like what you are asking, but without the magic wand involved a hammock.
At the end of it, he is called, and told he can't go on vacation, and inserts a nuclear detonation in the background very quickly, and realistically.

Anyways, gimp has filters, paint,net has filters, most image programs worth their salt has a sort of image editing filter, and module system.

This is the god damn internet, and 2013, the problem is not finding something, rather than something simply not existing.

Other programs can be good, but when you spend over a decade and tens of millions of dollars developing a piece of software, it tends to be good.
As soon as another company CAN compete, then by all means. Until then, Photoshop remains the largest, most comprehensive image manipulation package.

My counterexample, EA.

And that is disregarding the abilities of other systems, like GIMP, and SAI.
Sure a company can do a lot, but their community can do more.

What is was, Macromedia.

Most of those tens of millions of dollars goes to advertizing. With that advertizing, they secure their hold over other would-be major competitors. Like Foa said anyways, GIMP and SAI are worth mentioning; especially SAI since it has better line art technology.

I somehow missed this part.

I was talking strictly about the money spent on the development of the software. As in, they've spent tens of millions making the software better, regardless of how much they've spent advertising it.

And yes, GIMP and SAI are worth mentioning. GIMP is free, and has comparable capability, but nowhere near the level of refinement or selection of inbuilt tools. And SAI is for painting/drawing, not image manipulation.
Neither are bad programs by any means, but Photoshop is still quite frankly better.

Not better for people working in specific fields. Animators and illustrators are stuck using a jackknife from hell just to get their lines done, and can't even use SAI if they want to due to industry "standards". And of course artists and designers who want "muh OS freedom" (like myself lol) don't have the option to use GIMP either. It's like Wal Marts. They have absolutely everything. So much everything that specialists are stomped down by their venture capitalist boots. Sure I can appreciate the virtuosity of the program, but what I really want is a specialized, organized, and lightweight professional program rivaling PS. So I don't want to go to Wal mart for my steaks, take me to a butcher.

Fair enough. It is Photoshop, not Animationshop.

For the curious, the photoshop tutorial plus comedy series you are thinking of is "You Suck at Photoshop".