Squirrel Logic

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

The reason why people thought that you came off as trolling was because you were using the same "one or two home truths" (i.e. arguments) ad nauseam. Usually repeating the same thing over and over again is considered spamming.

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

That's not the point of this thread. People are not trying to make Affinity products Linux-only.

1% of the total desktop users does not equate to 1% of Serif's target demographic. Serif makes design software, not a universal application like a web browser, so you should be taking into account only Serif's potential customers in this argument, and not the entirety of computer users. The number of creative professionals that use (or want to use) Linux is higher than the total population.
The thing is, we don't know exactly what Serif's target demo is. If Serif is only interested in taking current Adobe users (who are ipso facto only Windows and Mac users), then yes, making a Linux version makes no sense. But I would assume that Serif is interested in more than Adobe's current customers that need design software: students, UI designers, front-end developers, film editors, 3D animators, software developers, and marginalized creatives.
I don't know what their target demo is, but I what Serif to know that there are designers who work in software development that want Affinity applications available in Linux, even moreso in web design. I know people who work in animation who would give anything to use something besides The GIMP at work because their 3D pipeline is Linux (Pixar, WDAS).
As someone who has a graphic design degree, who is currently working on 3D assets, does web design and front-end development as part of their job, I'm in Linux for 70% of my day. I spend $323 USD annually on software that I run in Linux (no VM, no WINE). It fluctuates every year, but this year I donated €40 to open-source software that I use in Linux and Windows. Not technically commercial software, but it's software I use commercially, and I gave them my money. That sounds like a business to me. It shows that if it was not open source, I would have paid at least that much money for the software. So abso-freaking-lutely, successful commercial Linux software exists.
Again, I get it. Serif might not care about large film or animation studios. They may not care about software developers. But I think it is the right of customers, and potential customers, to let Serif know that there's a need for it. So instead of pretending to know what Serif's demo is, accept that there is demand for it. The argument that an electric car shouldn't be made because not enough electric cars have been made doesn't make sense to me.

That is actually one of the futures I imagined, since it's the reason why we use Figma for most of our work. Web and software development is very cross-disciplinary, so we need something that developers can also use, and not have arbitrary boundaries get in the way. If it's performant enough we don't care that it's in a browser. We do care if we have to have a second computer or dual-boot just to open a file. It's the worst kind of task switching we have to do when we use Affinity products. We don't have that problem with Figma, so we don't use Affinity as part of that pipeline.
The problem companies are experiencing is that there's no perfect set of software with OS compatibility for technology-oriented businesses. We can't use Apple for everything because it's under-powered for 3D rendering and content creation. We can't use Windows for everything because of how poorly it works with backend development. Linux works great for 3D, content, and development. So why not have everyone just specialize then? We don't want to create silos, and our success depends on multidisciplinary teams; that's just how things are now nowadays. We consolidate our tools as much as we can to have everyone on the same page. It's easier to deploy, onboard, and support. The whole team uses one IDE, one Git client, one VM, one project management system, one modeling and animation app, one video editor, and it's great. But when it comes to the vector and print design it's a mess. The apps that have stuck around that everyone uses are Figma and DaVinci because they work everywhere we need them to.
At this point I see one of two things happening that will solve the problems that companies are facing with regards to software and OS support for teams that need to do everything smoothly. Microsoft will improve their OS and WSL so that backend development is just as good as it is in Linux, or someone is going to create a cross-platform design suite (web-based or otherwise) to make it universal. At this point, I think it's more likely that Microsoft will fix the problems it has with software development. They've been putting a lot of effort into that and it's almost there. That means Windows can become a universal operating system. If that doesn't happen first (and it might not happen due to limitations inherent in Windows), I imagine that Adobe will create cross-platform apps, since they probably have a better understanding of what companies are struggling with.
But that's just from the business side of things. I'm also concerned about students and the millions of people who are in that in-between space of being a solopreneur that are not part of a big company. Even if Adobe releases cross platform solutions, I don't see Adobe looking out for them. Maybe Serif might?

I will add that I think the big lesson here for people who are doing app development is to plan ahead from the very beginning to not write software that will only work in one operating system. The tools to make fully cross-platform apps have been around for years.

That is actually one of the futures I imagined, since it's the reason why we use Figma for most of our work. Web and software development is very cross-disciplinary, so we need something that developers can also use, and not have arbitrary boundaries get in the way. If it's performant enough we don't care that it's in a browser. We do care if we have to have a second computer or dual-boot just to open a file. It's the worst kind of task switching we have to do when we use Affinity products. We don't have that problem with Figma, so we don't use Affinity as part of that pipeline.
The problem companies are experiencing is that there's no perfect set of software with OS compatibility for technology-oriented businesses. We can't use Apple for everything because it's under-powered for 3D rendering and content creation. We can't use Windows for everything because of how poorly it works with backend development. Linux works great for 3D, content, and development. So why not have everyone just specialize then? We don't want to create silos, and our success depends on multidisciplinary teams; that's just how things are now nowadays. We consolidate our tools as much as we can to have everyone on the same page. It's easier to deploy, onboard, and support. The whole team uses one IDE, one Git client, one VM, one project management system, one modeling and animation app, one video editor, and it's great. But when it comes to the vector and print design it's a mess. The apps that have stuck around that everyone uses are Figma and DaVinci because they work everywhere we need them to.
At this point I see one of two things happening that will solve the problems that companies are facing with regards to software and OS support for teams that need to do everything smoothly. Microsoft will improve their OS and WSL so that backend development is just as good as it is in Linux, or someone is going to create a cross-platform design suite (web-based or otherwise) to make it universal. At this point, I think it's more likely that Microsoft will fix the problems it has with software development. They've been putting a lot of effort into that and it's almost there. That means Windows can become a universal operating system. If that doesn't happen first (and it might not happen due to limitations inherent in Windows), I imagine that Adobe will create cross-platform apps, since they probably have a better understanding of what companies are struggling with.
But that's just from the business side of things. I'm also concerned about students and the millions of people who are in that in-between space of being a solopreneur that are not part of a big company. Even if Adobe releases cross platform solutions, I don't see Adobe looking out for them. Maybe Serif might?

M1 chips perform very well for some tasks, but 3D rendering has not been one of them at the moment. A lot of rendering engines are not written for M1. Apple's Metal has also been a problem for us. The chips in the current line of Macs are geared for efficiency rather than raw power. I expect future M1 chips to catch up in that department. Even when they do hit the market, they won't be as cost effective. For every dollar we put into an iMac we can get so much more rendering power out of a PC and graphics cards that are dedicated to that type of processing.
And with Intel's Alder Lake around the corner, the benefits of the M1 won't be exclusive to Apple.

If you are a new arrival to this thread and have found that it is locked but still want to show your support for Affinity on Linux, simply like this post

That is actually one of the futures I imagined, since it's the reason why we use Figma for most of our work. Web and software development is very cross-disciplinary, so we need something that developers can also use, and not have arbitrary boundaries get in the way. If it's performant enough we don't care that it's in a browser. We do care if we have to have a second computer or dual-boot just to open a file. It's the worst kind of task switching we have to do when we use Affinity products. We don't have that problem with Figma, so we don't use Affinity as part of that pipeline.
The problem companies are experiencing is that there's no perfect set of software with OS compatibility for technology-oriented businesses. We can't use Apple for everything because it's under-powered for 3D rendering and content creation. We can't use Windows for everything because of how poorly it works with backend development. Linux works great for 3D, content, and development. So why not have everyone just specialize then? We don't want to create silos, and our success depends on multidisciplinary teams; that's just how things are now nowadays. We consolidate our tools as much as we can to have everyone on the same page. It's easier to deploy, onboard, and support. The whole team uses one IDE, one Git client, one VM, one project management system, one modeling and animation app, one video editor, and it's great. But when it comes to the vector and print design it's a mess. The apps that have stuck around that everyone uses are Figma and DaVinci because they work everywhere we need them to.
At this point I see one of two things happening that will solve the problems that companies are facing with regards to software and OS support for teams that need to do everything smoothly. Microsoft will improve their OS and WSL so that backend development is just as good as it is in Linux, or someone is going to create a cross-platform design suite (web-based or otherwise) to make it universal. At this point, I think it's more likely that Microsoft will fix the problems it has with software development. They've been putting a lot of effort into that and it's almost there. That means Windows can become a universal operating system. If that doesn't happen first (and it might not happen due to limitations inherent in Windows), I imagine that Adobe will create cross-platform apps, since they probably have a better understanding of what companies are struggling with.
But that's just from the business side of things. I'm also concerned about students and the millions of people who are in that in-between space of being a solopreneur that are not part of a big company. Even if Adobe releases cross platform solutions, I don't see Adobe looking out for them. Maybe Serif might?

Because it is more cost-effective to purchase than to develop.
Several years ago when I asked people who work at animation studios that run Linux what software they used for image editing and digital painting, they said GIMP. When I asked her how they've been managing using GIMP for their texturing work, she said that it gets the job done. I have heard about studios using Photoshop CS5 and WINE when they didn't want to use GIMP. For concept art and texturing, Photoshop hasn't changed much since then.
There's still fragmentation, even with Creative Cloud. I've had machines that were running older versions of Windows that Adobe products would refuse to install on because they were no longer supported. On MacOS we had to roll back a couple of times on new updates while the Windows machines ran the new versions of the software.
The fragmentation you are describing is making sure everyone is using the most recent version of the software. With the realities of bad software updates aside, Adobe CC forces it by making everyone pay in advance for the upgrade. The Creative Cloud license validation and updater app is a separate technology that any software company can implement. That is not a feature exclusive to subscription software.
Even without such software, a company with an IT department will be running an RMM to remotely patch and update 3rd-party software on employee's computers. So perhaps the best use-case for the CC license validation and updater app is for small businesses that don't use an RMM. But small businesses and freelancers are the best candidates for being okay with not having their software up-to-date all the time.

I think browser-based applications are totally valid. How many of us have replaced Microsoft Word with Google Docs? How many of us use our browser for email clients like Mailspring or Gmail instead of Outlook? Instead of Microsoft Project, we now use JIRA and Trello—all applications that run in a browser. Slack and Discord are browser applications; the desktop versions are just Electron apps. At the last agency I worked at, we used browser-based video software to create video for social media. Adobe is creating products like Spark, Lightroom CC, and Mikamo (3D rigging and animation) as browser applications. For us, Figma is a valid replacement for two desktop applications that do the similar jobs (Sketch and Adobe XD). In other words, there's plenty of desktop applications that we do not buy because a browser-based equivalent was better. If that doesn't prove validity of a browser application, I don't know what does.
Like it or not, the browser has become the newest operating system. They might not be as performant as desktop applications, but more often than not it does the job just fine, and have completely replaced desktop applications. WebAssembly (compiled code as opposed to JavaScript) allows CPU-intensive tasks run client-side in the browser, further opening up the possibility of more browser-based design applications. PWAs allow websites to be installed as apps on desktop and mobile devices. In the future, there shouldn't be a need to install the mobile app version of Trello, Notion, JIRA, Reddit, and so on.
Just because a piece of software is written in JavaScript, Wasm, and uses HTML/CSS for the UI, doesn't disqualify it from being a replacement for something written in C# or Swift.
Do I want every piece of software I used to be browser-based? No. I typically install the Electron/desktop version of most of the online software I use daily. I would rather use software that doesn't have the overhead of an Electron app. But these companies are using a tech stack that lets them write the software once and have it work everywhere. If Figma can do it for UI design, I don't think it'll be long until someone else does it for digital illustration, vector art, desktop publishing, and so on. I would much rather have native apps, but if a browser-based app comes along and does the job for everyone on our team that uses Linux? We'll take it.

Okay. They are not Linux-exclusive designers; as you say, VMs running Windows. All our UI design work is done in Figma because it is a cross platform tool. There are design roles that can be done 100% in Linux without compromise. I count product designers and illustrators as "designers" too. Their tools also work 100% in Linux without compromise.

Researchers and strategists do.
Qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) data may be harder to quantify by its very nature, but that doesn't make qualitative data less important than quantitative data. Quantitative data is easier to measure. It takes less time than processing narratives by humans, and turning qualitative information into quantitative data to be presented to stakeholders.
You have to listen to what people are saying. I think it's the root cause of a lot of the problems we are seeing with tech companies that have—quite frankly—ruined lives because they chose to be data-driven instead of data-informed. If you don't count anecdotes and user stories as part of your decision making it means you are not counting what users are actually saying. People's voices, stories, and personal experiences should not be flat-out ignored. It makes you blind to the bigger picture.
Innovators will always be doing things where there are no numbers to back it up, because innovators do things no one has done before.
In my little corner of the print/graphic/web/software design industry, most of the people I work with on a professional level very much want a Linux version, including the company I work for. I was able to convince us to become a Affinity shop, but it is a drag for our Linux-using designers and developers to use a VM to run the software. But don't let that be the reason why you won't support Linux. There's plenty of people who don't have the RAM to dedicate to a VM that you'll be missing out on.
I understand that the want or (in some cases) need for a Linux version among the design community may not sway Serif much in the short term, especially now that ARM is something macOS devs will have to deal with soon, but at the very least I hope that future companies will make the decision in the beginning to use a tech stack that will allow them to write cross-platform products easily.

I also agree that Microsoft will not have a subscription-based operating system. That is not the reason why they made WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). Microsoft makes a TON of money the same way Amazon does: cloud computing. WSL exists to support software developers who work in Windows. Why? Because Linux dominates software development, and Microsoft understands that. Making a web app? Linux. Have a desktop or mobile app that connects to a server? Linux.
The domination of Linux in software development is the other reason why I think Affinity should consider a Linux version (aside from giving creatives in marginalized groups an opportunity). Software development requires multi-disciplinary teams. Software developers work with visual designers. And the lines between all of these roles are starting to blur. That is the reason why we are using Figma to do UI design work instead of Affinity Designer. I used Adobe Illustrator for that type of work in the past (this was before Affinity Designer came into my life),  but Figma is something that developers can actually use. So we use Figma because it runs in all operating systems. But to be clear, just because Figma has "multiplayer technology", doesn't mean that Figma is not rubbish at a lot of stuff. Figma is the wrong tool for a lot of things I use it for. But I use it for those things because, again...it works in Linux, and I need to work in a team. Affinity Designer would be much better to use in those cases, but it's limited because of the OSes it can not run on.
The point I'd like to make is that—at this price point—software developers getting Affinity products is an impulse buy. It will allow people to buy it that wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. Allowing disadvantaged groups of people to be able to purchase the required equipment and software at a lower price point is another group of people who would not have purchased Affinity products otherwise.
It's about getting new customers that Adobe doesn't reach.
I do understand the complexities of creating software for multiple operating systems. I also understand that the codebase was probably not built for cross-platform development (hopefully that's a version 2 consideration). I'm sure there's a business strategy of making sure that Affinity products are matching people's needs first so that Affinity actually is an alternative to Adobe. And honestly, I can see why companies would not be interested in creating solutions for developers and minorities. But trust me, they have a loud voice. Once software business start caring about them, they'll get the word out.
Don't think that developers and minorities will be a big enough customer base to cover the cost of development? Consider that people do check to see what operating system software can run on before they buy it. Software that runs on all three operating systems communicates a mature well-written codebase. It lets me know that I'm not locked in, that I can switch operating systems in the future and still be able to edit my files. And it assures me that making this switch will have longevity, and that it's one less thing to worry about.

I also agree that Microsoft will not have a subscription-based operating system. That is not the reason why they made WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). Microsoft makes a TON of money the same way Amazon does: cloud computing. WSL exists to support software developers who work in Windows. Why? Because Linux dominates software development, and Microsoft understands that. Making a web app? Linux. Have a desktop or mobile app that connects to a server? Linux.
The domination of Linux in software development is the other reason why I think Affinity should consider a Linux version (aside from giving creatives in marginalized groups an opportunity). Software development requires multi-disciplinary teams. Software developers work with visual designers. And the lines between all of these roles are starting to blur. That is the reason why we are using Figma to do UI design work instead of Affinity Designer. I used Adobe Illustrator for that type of work in the past (this was before Affinity Designer came into my life),  but Figma is something that developers can actually use. So we use Figma because it runs in all operating systems. But to be clear, just because Figma has "multiplayer technology", doesn't mean that Figma is not rubbish at a lot of stuff. Figma is the wrong tool for a lot of things I use it for. But I use it for those things because, again...it works in Linux, and I need to work in a team. Affinity Designer would be much better to use in those cases, but it's limited because of the OSes it can not run on.
The point I'd like to make is that—at this price point—software developers getting Affinity products is an impulse buy. It will allow people to buy it that wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. Allowing disadvantaged groups of people to be able to purchase the required equipment and software at a lower price point is another group of people who would not have purchased Affinity products otherwise.
It's about getting new customers that Adobe doesn't reach.
I do understand the complexities of creating software for multiple operating systems. I also understand that the codebase was probably not built for cross-platform development (hopefully that's a version 2 consideration). I'm sure there's a business strategy of making sure that Affinity products are matching people's needs first so that Affinity actually is an alternative to Adobe. And honestly, I can see why companies would not be interested in creating solutions for developers and minorities. But trust me, they have a loud voice. Once software business start caring about them, they'll get the word out.
Don't think that developers and minorities will be a big enough customer base to cover the cost of development? Consider that people do check to see what operating system software can run on before they buy it. Software that runs on all three operating systems communicates a mature well-written codebase. It lets me know that I'm not locked in, that I can switch operating systems in the future and still be able to edit my files. And it assures me that making this switch will have longevity, and that it's one less thing to worry about.

I also agree that Microsoft will not have a subscription-based operating system. That is not the reason why they made WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). Microsoft makes a TON of money the same way Amazon does: cloud computing. WSL exists to support software developers who work in Windows. Why? Because Linux dominates software development, and Microsoft understands that. Making a web app? Linux. Have a desktop or mobile app that connects to a server? Linux.
The domination of Linux in software development is the other reason why I think Affinity should consider a Linux version (aside from giving creatives in marginalized groups an opportunity). Software development requires multi-disciplinary teams. Software developers work with visual designers. And the lines between all of these roles are starting to blur. That is the reason why we are using Figma to do UI design work instead of Affinity Designer. I used Adobe Illustrator for that type of work in the past (this was before Affinity Designer came into my life),  but Figma is something that developers can actually use. So we use Figma because it runs in all operating systems. But to be clear, just because Figma has "multiplayer technology", doesn't mean that Figma is not rubbish at a lot of stuff. Figma is the wrong tool for a lot of things I use it for. But I use it for those things because, again...it works in Linux, and I need to work in a team. Affinity Designer would be much better to use in those cases, but it's limited because of the OSes it can not run on.
The point I'd like to make is that—at this price point—software developers getting Affinity products is an impulse buy. It will allow people to buy it that wouldn't have purchased it otherwise. Allowing disadvantaged groups of people to be able to purchase the required equipment and software at a lower price point is another group of people who would not have purchased Affinity products otherwise.
It's about getting new customers that Adobe doesn't reach.
I do understand the complexities of creating software for multiple operating systems. I also understand that the codebase was probably not built for cross-platform development (hopefully that's a version 2 consideration). I'm sure there's a business strategy of making sure that Affinity products are matching people's needs first so that Affinity actually is an alternative to Adobe. And honestly, I can see why companies would not be interested in creating solutions for developers and minorities. But trust me, they have a loud voice. Once software business start caring about them, they'll get the word out.
Don't think that developers and minorities will be a big enough customer base to cover the cost of development? Consider that people do check to see what operating system software can run on before they buy it. Software that runs on all three operating systems communicates a mature well-written codebase. It lets me know that I'm not locked in, that I can switch operating systems in the future and still be able to edit my files. And it assures me that making this switch will have longevity, and that it's one less thing to worry about.

That's basically the sentiment: it's a chicken and egg problem. Few graphic designers use Linux because there's no good design tools in Linux. Companies won't develop design tools for Linux because graphic designers don't use Linux. This is all in spite of the fact that many other creative disciplines and studios that heavily integrate with graphic designers already use Linux: 2D animation, 3D animation, software development, video editing, and so on.
Given current events, I think it's also important to think about how to improve the lives of people in disadvantaged and underprivileged communities. This is a problem I've been trying to work out for a while, and it is why I'm teaching Affinity products over Adobe products for my design courses. How do you get those communities the tools they need to have better opportunities? By making them them more accessible. A highly-capable computer for creative work could cost 20% more if you buy Windows 10 Home (and I don't recommend getting the cheaper Home edition). Linux also performs better on older hardware, which is why—as a graphic designer and illustrator—I run Linux on my older machines instead of Windows for creative work.
Subscription-based software is death for underprivileged creatives. Increasing the cost of entry through a $140-200 operating system only makes it more difficult for them to get started. Affinity software is certainly making it easier for disadvantaged artists by not requiring them to pay monthly, but it is still requiring them to pay another software company just for the privilege of being able to use a computer.
There's no denying that there's one operating system that is better for marginalized people. I'm hoping that as the world becomes more aware of the problems that minorities still face today, and that software companies will start to do the same.

That's basically the sentiment: it's a chicken and egg problem. Few graphic designers use Linux because there's no good design tools in Linux. Companies won't develop design tools for Linux because graphic designers don't use Linux. This is all in spite of the fact that many other creative disciplines and studios that heavily integrate with graphic designers already use Linux: 2D animation, 3D animation, software development, video editing, and so on.
Given current events, I think it's also important to think about how to improve the lives of people in disadvantaged and underprivileged communities. This is a problem I've been trying to work out for a while, and it is why I'm teaching Affinity products over Adobe products for my design courses. How do you get those communities the tools they need to have better opportunities? By making them them more accessible. A highly-capable computer for creative work could cost 20% more if you buy Windows 10 Home (and I don't recommend getting the cheaper Home edition). Linux also performs better on older hardware, which is why—as a graphic designer and illustrator—I run Linux on my older machines instead of Windows for creative work.
Subscription-based software is death for underprivileged creatives. Increasing the cost of entry through a $140-200 operating system only makes it more difficult for them to get started. Affinity software is certainly making it easier for disadvantaged artists by not requiring them to pay monthly, but it is still requiring them to pay another software company just for the privilege of being able to use a computer.
There's no denying that there's one operating system that is better for marginalized people. I'm hoping that as the world becomes more aware of the problems that minorities still face today, and that software companies will start to do the same.

That's basically the sentiment: it's a chicken and egg problem. Few graphic designers use Linux because there's no good design tools in Linux. Companies won't develop design tools for Linux because graphic designers don't use Linux. This is all in spite of the fact that many other creative disciplines and studios that heavily integrate with graphic designers already use Linux: 2D animation, 3D animation, software development, video editing, and so on.
Given current events, I think it's also important to think about how to improve the lives of people in disadvantaged and underprivileged communities. This is a problem I've been trying to work out for a while, and it is why I'm teaching Affinity products over Adobe products for my design courses. How do you get those communities the tools they need to have better opportunities? By making them them more accessible. A highly-capable computer for creative work could cost 20% more if you buy Windows 10 Home (and I don't recommend getting the cheaper Home edition). Linux also performs better on older hardware, which is why—as a graphic designer and illustrator—I run Linux on my older machines instead of Windows for creative work.
Subscription-based software is death for underprivileged creatives. Increasing the cost of entry through a $140-200 operating system only makes it more difficult for them to get started. Affinity software is certainly making it easier for disadvantaged artists by not requiring them to pay monthly, but it is still requiring them to pay another software company just for the privilege of being able to use a computer.
There's no denying that there's one operating system that is better for marginalized people. I'm hoping that as the world becomes more aware of the problems that minorities still face today, and that software companies will start to do the same.

As far it being "small dollars", the subscription model is usually the difference between all of the employees being able to use the same tools versus just a few. A thousand dollars per license annually is a lot for a team member who barely uses the software and only needs it from time to time to collaborate on a design project.
If you are a large company then you can waste that kind of money. But even a large company will only spend money when it makes sense. Meaning only the graphic designers on the team will get access to the same software: the product lead won't, the managers won't, the programmers won't, the UX consultant won't, the copywriters won't, and so on down the line.
If you are a freelance graphic designer working alone, then paying the Adobe tax is justifiable. Although I've found that for the freelancers who I have recommended use the Affinity suite for their freelance work have really enjoyed the ability for their clients to have access to all the same software that they are using. Clients love Affinity.
I really want to drive the point home that the way so much of the world is moving now is towards multi-disciplinary teams. This whole idea of designers being isolated away from the rest of the team, sitting at their iMacs using software that no one else can access to is becoming a very antiquated idea. People need to be able to work together seamlessly. Being able to use the same software is a huge part of that.
We recently purchased GitKraken for our designers and artists. Yes, it's an annual subscription. We had the opportunity to get a cheaper non-subscription alternative called Fork to do the same thing, but we decided not to because Fork is Windows and Mac only. We didn't want the developers using different software from the designers and artists. So let that sink in. We passed on cheaper non-subscription software for our designers because it didn't work on Linux, and we are paying a subscription fee for the privilege. Linux support > no subscription. Don't get the wrong idea. It's very valuable for a lot of people that this software remains non-subscription, but please don't underestimate the importance of Linux support in a company's purchasing decision.