OriolFM

The PDF is a different case. The PDF files were conceived not as a working format, but as an EXCHANGE format, which means that the specification had to be clear and readable. PDFs were the way Adobe could send files for printing with separate layers, color-coded, and to making sure that the printed image is as close to what's on the PDF as possible. The main point is that it needed to be readable. They even made the PDF reader free to use, to guarantee that the PDFs would be read properly, and then printed. And yes, several companies reverse-engineered the PDF files to work with them, but still, PDF was designed as an exchange format, to export the working file with all you need for printing or reading, not for working on it. This is why results in editing PDFs can vary from useful to bad. If you complained to Adobe, they'll say that you should be working in Illustrator or indesign, and use PDF only as the previous step to print. The only way of getting an open format file is having some organisation or consortium lay down the specifications and requirements for the file type, as it is done with OpenDocument. That organisation can create an international norm that defines the standard, and all the software makers can adopt it freely if they want to. In design, nothing of the sorts has been done yet, and I doubt it will unless some big companies (not necessarily involved with design software) put their weight behind that. For instance, if Microsoft, Google and others decided they want to standardise some design files to circumvent proprietary formats, and made an agreement, also open to minor design software companies. Having that weight, they could create an open standard that could be used in their future software.

It's a compressed raster format, only supports one layer (could use a workaround using several frames to represent different layers) and a lot of channels (allegedly including alpha channels), but it's clearly a web-oriented format focused on small size and decoding speed, not as a versatile working file. PNG (supports transparency) or TIFF (transparency and layers) have been around very long as exchange files, but they are still missing many options regarding composite/modification layers, layer masks, vector information, and others that are also not included in JPG XL. As I mentioned, the problem here is the lack of a standard specification/features in design programs, and this is why each software maker adds whatever they need into their file formats.

Well, with many programs you can work in open format files, but these seldom support all the additional features particular to each software. For instance, Word can open and work with Opendocument format (which is very well defined), but things like Macros, certain style choices and the history of changes/revisions won't work (because OO or LO don't have those options). In design, SVG is as close as it comes to a standard vector file, and PNG/TGA are lossless files that support transparency/layers (but not both) for rasterized pictures, but all of these are extremely limited in their scope, and lack a lot of information compared to the "working" formats of professional programs. There is not an opendocument specification for design equivalent to a PSD or an .AI file, for instance. GIMP's XCF files are as close as it gets to a normalised standard format, but no other program is using them, as far as I know. The lack of open source alternatives in design software plays against standard formats.

Funny that you mention Microsoft. Some time back I needed cloud storage that could sync with my desktop (too many lost documents in unreliable USB/network storage units). I started looking for good prices in cloud storage, and you know what? The cheapest option was to get MS Office365 AND receive 1 TB of cloud storage per user. There are also family plans with cheaper per-user storage. The problem with most software subscriptions is when they don't deliver enough worth for what you're paying. Adobe, for instance, charges you a loooooot of money every month, and what they deliver is not so different from 2 or 3 versions back. If they had perpetual licenses for their versions from, say, two years ago, why on earth would people buy their new versions? Maybe a bunch of photographers wanting this particular new function they needed, but once that's in the software, why keep upgrading? How many more features they can add? What makes the MS 365 subscription work is the added value they give you for it. Now let's imagine that Adobe told you "hey, we're charging you 100USD per month, but you get 10 TB of cloud storage with regular backups and seamless integration". Now that's a deal many people might be interested in. For Adobe it makes sense, since now storage prices are cheap, and that's a feature that requires little upkeep. Of course, there's the other problem: apparently, Adobe "might" have used images by their users in their cloud storage to train AI. Without authorisation, or with an implicit authorisation hidden in the fine print of their Terms & Conditions. And still some guys in their board will wonder why people don't purchase their nice subscriptions. Well, figures.

That might be the case. I started drawing, and seriously trying to improve for about 3 decades. First I learnt Photoshop, then Gimp, I tried Krita, Autodesk Sketchbook, and other programs. I settled for Clip Studio Paint. For desktop publishing, I tried Page maker back in the day, I tried Quark Xpress for a very brief period (when I was a student), then mostly did any small things I needed with Microsoft Publisher, until it wasn't enough anymore. I tried Scribus, but the UI was hellish. I started looking for alternatives, I checked Canva first, but it did look pretty basic and didn't seem to offer much control about the output, save for some pre-made templates I could fill up. I found Affinity Publisher, and I went for it. For vector, I tried Coreldraw, Illustrator, then Inkscape, then I didn't do anything for years. When I needed it again, since I was already using Affinity Publisher, I tried Designer, and that's where I am. Each of these steps took time to learn. I do that for everything: For 3D, I started with Real3D and Lightwave in Amiga, went to PC and 3d Studio, 3D Studio Max, and finally Blender. For programming, I've had to learn multiple programming and scripting languages. I may not be the best at any of them, but I can do what I need, mostly. Sadly, there's a lot of people out there (the ones that cheer in excitement for any of the AI generative stuff that seems to be all the rage despite their blatant disregard for copyright) that consider spending time and effort in learning a new skill like something undesirable, and they feel accomplished if they manage to write a 1-paragraph prompt that produces a half-arsed result, and they write strong statements considering themselves "artists" in social media and telling everyone how much "effort" took for them to get that result. Probably, the target for pre-made templates, no-fuss desktop publisher programs is this type of user, that does not have or want to invest any time and/or effort to get something done, and are OK with a stereotypical and/or mediocre result as long as it approximates what they were looking for. For the guys who know EXACTLY what they want, that is never enough, because a generic app will never allow enough customization, and therefore, it will never produce the right result.

Well, I am a hobbyist user, and I don't know much about printing save for cropping margins, RGB/CMYK modes and a few other things that carry from my illustration background, but I found Affinity Publisher/designer easy to use and with an intuitive UI, except for when it came to adding cross-references/links on Publisher, not long ago we still had to use wonky workarounds for something that should have been easy -for the user- to do. I also remember checking Canva back in the day, I also looked for an app that had an Android version. Canva did, but from what I saw, it was widely inadequate for my purposes, and didn't really offer enough control save for choosing a template and filling it. It may have evolved, but I didn't find much of a documentation about its features to get me interested in their product. Affinity did (having a forum with plenty of nice, helpful people also helps... when in doubt, I always choose the software with the best community).

Well, Adobe are the Borg of design software. They assimilate, nothing is left afterwards. Anyone could have seen that coming. Same thing happened when they absorbed Macromedia.

That's more or less what Clip Studio Paint does. Subscription version is being constantly updated and patched. One-time payment gets patched but not updated until the next major version (maybe 1-2 updates per year, at most). The new features from the subscription version are added little by little, and some may not arrive until the next big update (that requires another purchase). That said, they're gracious enough to have their products on sale about 2-3 times per year (that you can buy at a very reasonable price), and they offer discount for updates/upgrades all year round on top of that. As a hobbyist user of CSP, I think that is not entirely unreasonable: it's cheaper than purchasing a videogame, and gives me many more hours of fun than any videogame, so it's a no brainer. More or less goes for Affinity: I mostly use their products for my personal projects, and the current pricing model works for me. If they help me realise my ideas at a reasonable cost, I'll keep using them. The moment it becomes too expensive, I'm out.

They might be able to have a functional Android version too, if it's built like that. Either way, if they can package it as a stand-alone app, has an intuitive UI, it's user friendly and does the job, it doesn't matter how it runs in the backend.

If we're talking about paying a couple hundred € for a desktop publishing software, might as well pick Quark XPress. They're professional, they have a pay-once license, and the software is rock solid. Expensive, but rock solid, and with an option for a perpetual license.

I'll DEFINITELY watch this. The UI seems promising, and the feature list they want to implement looks almost too good to be true. If they can pull it off, it'll definitely be something to take into consideration. Maybe the "one tool to rule them all" approach is a bit too ambitious, I'd have split the project into a suite of programs, maybe one for vector design, another for raster, another for desktop publishing, a bit like Affinity did (animation could be part of either the vector or raster programs). That would allow to have finished programs out of alpha/beta earlier, but anyways... I'd say their timeline is solid.

The activation servers are the main issue. If they go for EOL but they make it so anyone with the license can keep using their programs, that would be fair. You paid a life license, after all. Even if they don't issue updates anymore, that is fine.

Krita is quite good, actually, but only for painting. It lacks the scope of Clip Studio Paint, so for me it falls a bit short. But for painting or illustration is far more usable than GIMP. And also has an Android version. And yes, Inkscape is an absolute hell to use. I think most of the UI issues that plague Open source software is because the guys who program it already know how it's supposed to work, so they don't need it to be intuitive. But it is daunting and borderline unusable for design, non-programming-oriented users. The team behind Blender got a lot of good feedback regarding the UI, and they're getting to a point where their program is on par with professional software not only in function, but in usability.

Look at Open Source Design/Art Software: - Blender is probably the best example, but the interface is still a bit clunky and the learning curve is steep. Lot of support and the community is great, though. - GIMP is... not bad, but the interface is also quite poor. It's functional for most things, but still not Photoshop by a long shot. Still, you can find add-ons and tutorials easily. - Inkscape is absolute hell. I tried using it several times, but the interface is downright unusable and counterintuitive. It looks as if someone deliberately made it more difficult for the user. And I know some people use it regularly and have done great things with it, it is just too painful. If it was more user-friendly, I'd probably be using it instead of buying Affinity Designer. - Before purchasing Affinity Publisher, I had also tried Scribus, as an open source publishing software. Scribus may have advanced functions, but it suffers from the same clunky interface as most of the other design open source programs do. Scribus support and documentation is also poor, and it is extremely difficult to use. I love open source software. I used Ubuntu and Libreoffice for years at my desktop, and I only moved back to Windows because I got a Microsoft Surface and Clip Studio Paint did not have a version for Linux. I got back to Microsoft Office instead of Libreoffice because MS365 comes with 1TB Onedrive storage, and that was cheaper than keep using Libreoffice and get a stand-alone cloud storage service. Still, whenever I can I use open source software, and when I need a program that's the first I check. But when it comes to design, OSS does not quite cut it, except maybe for Blender, which despite the UI and learning curve, is a pretty amazing program overall. If there was a team working in an open-source suite of design software similar to Affinity with well-written documentation and an intuitive UI, I wouldn't even think about subscribing to their Patreon (or whatever) as long as they kept the development going.

It's a lifetime license. I don't think they will revoke it. What they can do is stop supporting it and getting fixes out there as they move onto the next version, but you can also keep using the current one as long as you like (same thing they did with V1 vs V2). And if you find a better product that you like, you can also move on. Or not. Choice is yours.

A certain dude acquired Twitter not long ago, and we all know how that ended. Returning to topic, this doesn't look like when Disney bought Pixar, in that situation they just throw money at them and let them keep doing their thing. This looks more like a borg-style assimilation.

We got an e-mail just a while ago, that's how I found out.

Since it's what Canva does, that's definitely their endgame. Again, I would be willing to pay a reasonable subscription plan for Affinity (let's say, 8-10€ per month, if it comes with unlimited updates and additional features, it's roughly the same as buying a good program every year or two). But still, when you buy a new program every year or two, you can keep using it if you don't like the new version, which is probably what I'll do for the moment, until I see what's coming up and I decide if it's worth it or not.

Canva Acquisition might change things a bit... they have Android versions (subscription-based, though).

I bought Affinity because they were fairly priced and because the functions worked for me. I had considered Canva as well, specially because they also had an Android version, but the truth is that I didn't really like what they were offering, and I also didn't care much about the subscription model. As a hobby user, I delve into Clip Studio Paint. I have a PC one-time license for the EX version (the one with more functions) and a subscription for my Android tablet that includes the last updates, but it is only a pro one (allows me to do stand-alone illustrations, but not to handle whole comics, which is fine by me because I use the two desktop monitors for that). The point is that the subscription price is reasonable, and the functions I get for it are good enough for me. Now, depends on what the Canva guys do, the current V2 (with any updates/patches) might be the last one I get. If they start throwing random "AI" stuff in the programs, I'll definitely not support them. If they brought out a newer version that kept the Affinity philosophy with an Android version, I may even consider a subscription if the price is reasonable, but I'll not go in blindly.

Well, I use Clip Studio Paint to draw on my Tab S8 Ultra. Their app is very streamlined. You can do almost 100% of what you can do on the PC version, and they have the full UI, plus a simplified UI for sketching/painting without so many options (and you can switch quickly between them). You can also use your Android phone as a companion to the tablet and use it to display part of the UI (colour/brush selection or menu options, for instance, without any additional cost). That's a really well-thought, useful app, from a medium-sized company, that does one thing and does it very well. For Android, PC, Mac, and iOS.

I may modify it a bit and use it for a personal project. I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks for the template!

As I pointed out, Clip Studio Paint also has a version for Samsung Android devices. I guess Samsung has a less fragmented ecosystem, and they're by far the biggest Android maker.

I'm a user of Clip Studio Paint, and they also develop for Android (Samsung) and iPhone/iPad. Their one-time purchase fee is still available on PC but they switched to subscription for mobile devices (which I assume pays the bills of the mobile development team at no risk for the software publisher, if the users fell to a very low level, they could just drop the support for the app, but that hasn't been happening). I assume they develop only for Samsung because at the moment, they offer longer support for their phones and tablets that even Google does with their Pixel devices. They're also gotten much better than before, and their OS is generally very stable (Clip Studio works great in my Samsung Galaxy Tab S8 Ultra, even with high res images and so on).

Self-adjusting layouts should solve the lack of ePub options too.