justajeffy
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justajeffy
-
-
2 minutes ago, Snapseed said:
But that is not relevant because the pre-eminent criterion that software companies use to determine whether to release software on a platform is market share.
Well, it seems to matter to most of the software developers that service the industry that I work in. Damn near 100% of them produce Linux versions of their software. Sure, Linux users in high-end graphics represent a sub-segment of the Linux market, but with an extremely high penetration rate for commercial graphics software and image editing tools. There's significant sales potential here alone. Considering we outfit a studio of 50-60 people with Linux versions of expensive software like Autodesk Maya or Foundry Nuke, we wouldn't even blink at the cost of licenses for Affinity Photo for everyone. Make a proper Linux version, slap a "PRO" moniker at the end of the name, charge 30-40% more, offer volume licensing, then please TAKE MY MONEY.
-
4 minutes ago, Snapseed said:
because of Linux's small market share that makes it currently unviable to port their softwares over to Linux.
I'm getting so tired of the low market share argument. It is such an incomplete analysis of sales potential.
You need to factor in an estimate of penetration rate for each market. Though the windows market size is greater, I'd bet that the penetration rate for Affinity products within the Windows market would be lower than for the Linux market. A particular market segment may have fewer customers overall, but still present opportunity for good sales potential due to a higher penetration rate.
Also factor in the growth of the market for Linux on cloud desktops and application virtualization and you've got plenty of potential sales opportunity. If any software developer was interested in providing a SAAS model for their applications running in the cloud, it would be absolutely absurd for them to not consider getting the application running on Linux.
-
1 minute ago, Blende21 said:
Personally I doubt that Linux has more than 5% of desktop market share.
Overall desktop market share is not a very useful indicator of potential customers for an application that might be used only by a relatively small subset of those users.
At the very least, you can narrow it down to % of market within a designated user base.
eg.. What is the % of workstations running Linux in the VFX industry? I'd expect that number would be considerably higher than 5%. We're almost entirely Linux where I work. If it were available, I'd buy licenses to run the Linux version of Affinity photo on every workstation in the studio.
-
49 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:
In July 2020, only 0.86% (and declining) of Steam gamers were on Linux.
Yes, the stats from a predominantly Windows gaming platform will indicate that their users are on Windows, predominantly. That shouldn't be very surprising to anybody.
-
How to encourage developers to create Linux versions of their software:
- Pledge to buy it if/when it becomes available.
How NOT to encourage developers to create Linux versions of their software:
- Go on a political rant about "globalist corporations" and share 4chan conspiracy theories in forum posts
-
-
10 minutes ago, wonderings said:
Could it be Adobe did seriously look at it, did their research and found the numbers just did not look good in their favour?
Yes, that's very likely true. It's also probably true that for Adobe to accomplish something like a Linux port is considerably more expensive than it is for most developers. More planning, more developers, more training, IT infrastructure to support, more legacy code to deal with, potential legal issues to address with regards to licensing of 3rd party technologies, more bureaucracy all around. Not to mention having to answer to a board of directors, and ultimately shareholders. To them, the whole endeavor could seem like a logistical nightmare.
In short, I'm betting that most large publicly-traded corporations like Adobe generally have much more to deal with which therefore makes the entire prospect more costly and time-consuming for them. I would think that this should give smaller private companies an advantage to compete.
-
5 hours ago, Mark Ingram said:
The facts is, Linux isn't a user friendly desktop. You can't expect new users fresh out of school or university to get a brand new computer running Linux and be happy with it. It's not a "low maintenance" experience, I know from experience.
I don't want to start an argument here, but that's not really a fact. That is an opinion.
Also, It's an old argument that hasn't been true for a long time. As I mentioned in another post, I put newbies on Linux desktops all the time and they've never had a problem. A file browser is a file browser. A web browser is a web browser. Doesn't matter what OS you're using, the differences are pretty negligible nowadays. Imagine that you drive a Honda for most of your life, then one day you get in the driver's seat of a Toyota. You're not going to freak out because the dashboard looks different and all the buttons, dials and levers are in the wrong place. You still know how to drive a car. This car is different, but you'll get used to it very quickly.
I do consider Linux be relatively low maintenance. I'd have no problem whatsoever managing 100's of Linux desktops, but the thought of having to manage and support even just 10-20 Windows desktops sounds unpleasant to me. I spend very little time managing our Linux desktops and they keep on running anyway. I'm sure there are some good solutions for managing large Windows deployments that could make my life easier. I don't need any such things for Linux distros, though. They already come with everything I need.
-
4 minutes ago, Mark Ingram said:
What's the current setup look like in the VFX industry, out of interest?
I can't speak for the entire industry, but I can tell you that Linux desktops are quite common in VFX. We currently run CentOS 7.x with a Mate desktop. This choice is somewhat made for us due to the fact that RHEL and CentOS are the distros that are officially supported by companies like Autodesk, The Foundry, etc.. Our artists spend most of their time in Maya, Mudbox, Mari, Nuke, etc. Proper Linux versions of most apps we use have been available for quite some time. For image editing, we're forced to use programs like Gimp and Krita, which don't make the artists very happy. Render farm both on-prem and in the cloud is and probably always will be on Linux. The additional cost of Windows licenses on potentially thousands of render nodes isn't something we'd ever consider.
Another thing to consider is that the current health crisis has expedited the need to push more virtual desktops into the cloud to accommodate more people working from home. Running Mac virtual desktops in the cloud is not really a feasible option and running Windows desktops can be considerably more expensive and does not perform as well for the applications we use. We've had success recently running Linux VM desktops in the cloud. I foresee the need for this to grow substantially in the coming year or two.
- SomeDev and Mark Ingram
-
1
-
1
-
1 minute ago, wonderings said:
It is money though, money into training, money into IT and getting Linux setup, money on new support. All this for what kind of return? I seriously doubt all the Linux users would be happy to pay more then their Windows and Mac counterparts. It all sounds so easy, but it is not that simple. They are a business, they are in it to make money. They are also trying to advance their product. Look at the feature requests and things that people are wanting added to be a legit replacement for Adobe CC. Now on top of that people want efforts put into another OS that has a significantly smaller user base and of that small user base an even smaller number of people are going to be wanting/needing Affinity software.
Profit is never guaranteed. Much like it wasn't guaranteed when they decided to release for Windows or Mac. Thankfully for them, it appears to have paid off. I'm not going to presume to know how they should run their business. I'm just saying that if it existed, I would buy it. In other words, this is what they can do to get more of my money. If there are enough people like me saying this, then perhaps that might give food for thought. Or not. Whatever. It's inevitable that at some point, SOMEONE is going to release a decent commercial image editing application for Linux that artists would consider to be an acceptable replacement for Photoshop. Whoever does that first gets my money. Do what you will with that information.
-
Quote
It's more complicated that just "testing on WINE" during development.
I agree.
QuoteDo we train up all devs to learn how to use Linux?
Yes, but don't fret. It's not that hard. We're nearly 100% Linux on desktops in our studio. We put Linux newbies on desktops all the time. They have absolutely no problem being productive right away. Linux is fantastic for developers in our environment, so they never have a problem.
QuoteDo we purchase new machines to use?
If you want to. You don't have to. Most distros will multi-boot just fine on the machines you already have.
QuoteDo we train up the QA and tech support teams?
Yes, of course.
QuoteWhat about marketing, or offering support when there are inevitable problems when customers run it on WINE?
You're already paying for marketing, right? Just add "*now available for Linux" to all your marketing material. Done. I'd wager that you would get a staggering amount of free publicity all over the place if you announced a proper Linux version. In the VFX industry, the news would surely spread like wildfire. I know that many of my colleagues would be very excited.
Don't run it on wine.
QuoteAlso, I don't believe it's our responsibility to ensure that WINE works, that's the responsibility of the WINE developers (if the Affinity applications work on Windows, then they should work on WINE).
You're absolutely correct. Getting running (and keeping it running) in Wine is not and should not be your problem.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm willing to pay for a proper Linux version, only. I would buy 10 copies minimum, but it's probable that everyone in the studio would be crying for it once they became aware that it exists. That would mean having to buy about 50 copies. I'm willing to pay more for a Linux version than for the Windows version. I'd still happily buy up to 50 licenses even if you charged 4-5 times the normal amount for a Linux version. Just don't tell my CFO I said that.
-
I'd buy multiple licenses of a Linux version to be used in our studio, but I doubt that I'd choose to buy any licenses of the Windows version to be used in Linux under Wine.
I think that Wine is cool and all, but if we're going to invest in the software, I need to know it's properly supported on our platform of choice. Like I said before, I'm even willing to pay significantly more for a Linux version. A proper one.
-
Donating money to a private company in hopes that maybe, possibly they might consider giving us what we want? That doesn't make any sense. I would only contribute to a campaign run by them for the express purpose of funding development.
Also, I seriously doubt that they'd need to raise 5 million to port an existing application. That's absurd. Without taking into account things like management or operational expenses, that'd be enough money to fund between 25-35 full time developers for 2 years. Craziness. There's no way that should be required to make a Linux port possible.
-
That's an interesting idea. Have the community foot the bill up front for the development cost of porting to Linux. If the campaign doesn't succeed and doesn't get funded they could at least say that they tried. Look at the success of crowd funding things like Blender, for instance. Works out pretty well for them.. and us.
-
Hi. I don't want to add to any argument.
I'm just here to say that I pledge to buy a minimum of 10 copies of Affinity Photo for Linux if/when it becomes available.
Not only that, but for a Linux version, I'd be happy to pay 5-6x the amount that is currently being charged for the Windows version. The company credit card is burning a whole in my pocket just waiting to be used for exactly this kind of purchase. I'd buy as many as 50 copies depending on the cost, but definitely 10 copies at MINIMUM no matter what.
As for distro compatibility, just follow the VFX reference platform and I'm happy. (Probably go with RHEL/CentOS 7 if you want to follow what companies like Autodesk or The Foundry support.)
Affinity for Linux
in Feedback for the V1 Affinity Suite of Products
Posted
So the OS doesn't matter, but you prefer to run them on Mac? Why?
There are so many good reasons to choose Linux, I don't even know where to begin.