HansW

After finnishing a book in Publisher it would be nice to have a feature where I can publish the book as a flip book on my web page. Compare how you can brows a book at Blurb an similar print on demand book sites. 
Now I can make the book as a pdf, but that will not be as elegant to look at as a flip book.
Regards Hans

After finnishing a book in Publisher it would be nice to have a feature where I can publish the book as a flip book on my web page. Compare how you can brows a book at Blurb an similar print on demand book sites. 
Now I can make the book as a pdf, but that will not be as elegant to look at as a flip book.
Regards Hans

After finnishing a book in Publisher it would be nice to have a feature where I can publish the book as a flip book on my web page. Compare how you can brows a book at Blurb an similar print on demand book sites. 
Now I can make the book as a pdf, but that will not be as elegant to look at as a flip book.
Regards Hans

Lightroom replacement?  Just a guess of how many persons use lightroom. I picked this up from a lightroom forum.
 
I'd love to know that too. (how many lightroom users)  The 4.0 beta was downloaded more than 300,000 times. Some of those users could have downloaded multiple times, but a lot of Lightroom users never download beta versions.

I certainly think that photo organization software would take precedent over Ipad software as far as volume is concerned. How many users of mobile photoshop users are there compared to lightroom users? Seems as though you guys chose the wrong app to create. Hope you will now get on board so many of us can kiss Adobe goodbye.
Thanks,
A former Adobe dealer and former Adobe user who is still stuck with lightroom's old version.

A damn DAM..... !
[  Runnnnnssss very fast .....  ]
 

At the moment I am using ON1 (they also do the buy it / own it model, rather than the Adobe buy it / We own you model).
One that integrates with Affinity would be a damn sight better as far as I am concerned.

How about "looking into it" a lot sooner than maybe?

It's something our developers may look into for a future release.

I agree that Adobe are happy. I guess the installed base of Mac computers are in a ration of 1/10 to the installed base of Windows computers. But besides that, I will NEVER sign up for Adobe Cash Cow. Once in the trap it's a life long subscription for my own work as I can't get full access to my own work without the programmes. And Adobe will soon update the LR database to make it impossible to roll back to a purchased SW version. They are cleverly protecting ther monopolistsic position at Adobe.

Considdering the installed base of windows computers and windows users it's hard to understand the neglection. I would be a customer at once, if there was a windows alternative. Till then PS CS6 or Wimp will be my options.

Matthias,
you are putting forward standpoints which partially were valid 10 years ago.
Nowadays OS- agnostic code development is a reality, it's available for years. This means that newly developed tools will run
on any mayor platform without any hickups. Many software developers work that way – and according to gmcg Serif uses this
strategy too, with Affinity. Given that statement is correct Serif artifically restricts this software suite to the Mac at this time.

It is not correct to state that MacOS has global performance advantages over Windows due to more advanced technology.
Sorry, that's just not true. If you don't believe me, just do a Google search on that topic.
And it belongs to the realm of speculation that starting Windows development introduced an overall decline of Adobe's software
quality. Don't you think that a firm with  >11.0000 employees and and a revenue of > 4 billions could deal with instability problems?
(just for the record: I see no such issues).

Hi developers,
I only registered to this forum in order to quickly express my stunning disbelief about Serifs platform decision.
 
You create a promising and contemporary looking modern product line which is clearly geared towards graphics
professionals and really limit it to just the Mac?
  You do this in 2014 with a wide array of mature cross platform software and interface development tools available?
  You want to address graphics studios who boycott Adobe's forced rental contract just with the Macintosh platform in mind?
  You create a comprehensive new suite of Pixel and Vector tools and decide to disregard Adobe's unique selling point:
To be the only vendor worldwide who offers a 100% identical suite of  graphics tools on the 2 most important operation systems?
  You have the  fantastic chance to unify your already highly diverse product portfolio but instead decide to deal with the
same development tasks twice, in two entirely separate product suites: And and you call this more efficient?
  What firms do is of course entirely their business – but I can't bend my mind enough to remotely follow this logic.
Also the option to see Affinity features eventually dripple into your Windows tool Suite holds no promise. A wasted chance.

You are incorrect to say that most designers use Macs. I've been in the field for over 30 years and if you look at corporate work, it's almost all PC. The fact that Adobe products operate the same on Mac and PC (ahem, Affinity) makes it possible for PC users to do everything that Mac users can. In the beginning, the design products were made for Mac; it's old thinking to assume that the majority of designers use a Mac.

"serfif has a range of applications for windows"
 
True but they're just not good enough to compete with adobe CS hence the fact that only independents and hobbyists use it.
 
I don't understand serif's business case for this, doesn't make sense to invest in an application targeting professionals and then restricting themselves to a smaller market.