Good points; I plan to use Affinity until it goes to subscription, assuming it does. That said, I’d not considered the potential of a significant change in the app landscape several years from now. I’m probably getting out over my skis a bit.
My aversion to subscriptions is about being responsible with my money. The fact is, I’m blessed enough to be able to afford as many app subscriptions as I want, but that would not make it right. But, I also chafe at the “idea” of essentially “renting my tools.” I don’t like the idea in principle.
Not really (I know you were joking, but …). With these, I pay for what I use. With software subscriptions, what I pay is unrelated to what I consume. Worse, if for any reason I have to pause or stop consumption (e.g. I’m between jobs, or ill), I still have to pay. Even worserer, I might be continuing to pay for software that’s not updated, nor even well maintained. Finally, and worst ( for me anyway) I have to keep expending time and effort tracking and assessing which subs to keep and which to drop. On which subject, it’s a critical part of the subscription model that a proportion of customers carry on paying even if they stop using - giving the dev effectively free money. It’s they way fitness cnetres/gyms model their income - they know that a significant proportion of people who take a membership in January (“THIS is the year I’m going to get (back) in shape!”) and only use it for about 3 months but carry on paying.
That turned into a rant. Sorry, but I’m with @Bmosbacker on this.
Which is why I run outdoors or use my treadmill. The treadmill was paid for years ago so keeping in shape is financially free. There are of course other costs.
I am an adobe subscriber. I liked what Affinity was doing so I bought v1 and then the v2 one-time $100 deal they had even though I doubted I would ever use it. I don’t really get the adobe hate here though. If you are going to have one subscription Adobe is the one to have. The apps are constantly updated with new features. The amount of “free” tutorials and assets they push out are impressive. They have wonderful manuals and there are lots of books written on how to get the most out of the tools. I am not giving a dime to any other “graphics app” dev (except for Lumafusion, we love you Caroline)
We can not really trust any dev to stay true to the course they present when they are asking for our money. Whether it is 1password, textexpander, evernote, screens, imazing, fantastical, etc. etc. They will find a way to get more money out of you playing the role of “poor devs” and after you pony up, they will add the subscription, or sell out. This is the way of things. Don’t be guilted into giving them money. I have paid Panic for 3 apps that they discontinued. You know who keeps their apps available? adobe.
Not doubt, this is a huge bummer but as others have pointed out, version 2 is bought and paid for. I’ve already gotten a full year and several months from Version 2.
Version 1 of the apps were updated for quite some time. Given their statement on the Canva purchase and the FAQ I’d expect that version 2 will continue to be updated for at least another year, if not longer. If I can then make use of it another year or two beyond that point before the next version it will have been worth the investment. But actually expect that I’ll be able to use it longer.
If need be I can have a dedicated iPad just for these apps and leave it on an older version of iPadOS when that time comes. Not ideal but IF version 3 goes to subscription I’ll sort it out then. So, hopefully I get another 3+ years of use of version 2.
I won’t be surprised if the app goes subscription given what people are saying about Canva but I’ll remain hopeful that they might offer an option to purchase. It’s a ways off, I’m not going to make any rash decisions right now.
I’ve been using Pixelmator Pro for a few years and it does edit RAW and they are very good with updates. It’s a one time purchase. No subscription. I believe their IOS app is subscription but not the Mac version.
Wow, thanks for the heads up, this looks fantastic. I have Raw Power which integrates well with Photos but this is another level. My problem is integrating years of images from cameras and iPhones, and I think this might be the answer. I was just about to pay for a Lr subscription (I have learned that if you are using a subscription through your Uni its not trivial to switch to a personal subscription and was thinking of future proofing as the R word approaches) but for less than the price of a year with Adobe this is a no brainer.
As long as so many in this thread seem to use and care about Affinity apps, I’d like to ask a question that has bothered me for a long time.
I wonder why Affinity treats raw photos so differently than Adobe Lightroom does?
Adobe raw processing is very capable and ever improving but Affinity Photo’s remains very basic. Is it just a matter of initial design choices that lead to a divergence? Or maybe something historical in the way it was developed? Or maybe the background of the developers? I’ve googled around and never found a satisfactory answer.
I believe it’s because Affinity Photo started life as a Photoshop alternative (pixel editing) rather than a Lightroom alternative. For example, it’ll compatible with Photoshop file formats. While you van do an awful lot in the way of image manipulation, it’s not a fully formed RAW editor and maybe that’s wa=hy it’s perceived as “weak” in those areas.
Same here. And I would have believed it if they had communicated it that way right from beginning. I am not 100% convinced.
Still, it is good to read that they are aware of the reactions and expectations so far. And who knows, if it really will materialize that way, all the better.
That’s good that they explicitly stated that. It’s consistent with what they said earlier about pricing. Points #2 and #4 are meant for people like me so I’ll try to take my own advice and not worry about the product quality and direction.
That was a very good statement and allows the community to hold them to it.
What a shame it wasn’t made “up front” as part of the acquisition announcement
it reveals that Canva is less trusted than Serif. Everyone assumed that subscriptions were the Canva model for everything and I haven’t seen anyone argue against that assumption, not even Canva
Serif have a long history of very attractive deals and giveaways to education. It’s good to see that continue and to learn that it aligns with Canva’s approach
Serif products long before Affinity used to come with a CD full of stock images, icons and illustrations as well as fonts. I used to see them everywhere. I can see the attraction of using Canva as the modern equivalent.
How far Canva integration goes will be interesting. Serif have struggled to get a solid cloud offering of their own, have not managed to offer any kind of asset management, let alone a lightroom-style catalogue, and the eco-system of presets, plug-ins, brushes etc. is not yet well developed. A Canva subscription that is directly usable inside Affinity apps could be a fairly easy sell in some market sectors.
