Bog

I don't see anyone claiming that they don't have the right to make their own decisions. Is anyone claiming that? Obviously yes, and as long as they have contact information we have "the right" to disagree with them. I mean that's an empty statement. I agree with your great comments- the term you articulated in the last few sentences is, (as I'm sure you know), "first mover advantage". I don't understand why they don't get that. If adobe isn't going to support linux and serif does, then they've claimed a stake in a new market (commercially) as you said. (And as always, I'm not even talking about photoshop but the whole serif suite one at a time, (mainly I want something to compete with Illustrator). )

Right but what you're not getting is that the lack of adobe support causes a market gap that you can take advantage of. Business 101.

I never said "all".

There no emotion or childishness there. It's a calculated decision. If they're not logical enough to see the potential then there're not good at this whole software business thing; hence I wouldn't recommend the software of a company isn't good at it. ( I have no idea how you got "emotion" out of that. ) As for them reading the comments- like I said, we're continuing to make valid arguments as to whit it's profitable that are worth reading.

Exactly; they're myopic, completely ignoring all of us in spite of the fact that it's a whopping 35 pages and we're making legitimate well-articulated arguments about how profitable it would be for them given that it's 2021 and Adobe still doesn't support it and probably never will. They're in such a good market position. I'm not buying any serif products and I'm telling windows or mac users to avoid them because they're not being intelligent.

Yea I learned that in my discussion on the ubuntuforums (shh don't tell anyone I'm the same guy there as here lol) https://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=2453111&goto=newpost Why not just a regular apt-get package? (or yum). Think .deb files seem reliable and easy to install...

I tried glimpse recently, actually- two months ago. It runs in one of those "snap" installs. I *hate* those. Anyway- you can't edit files that are outside of your /home dir. Which means you can't edit files on you local dev webserver, because the standard directory for is /var/www/. So if you work on web sites and you have a local copy to test stuff before publishing live, you'd have to, like, edit a copy of the image, and every time you save, overwrite the one in your web directory. I'm like AYFKM??!!

I had a copy of photoshop 5.1 (that's right- before the "CS" crap lol) somewhere, I remember it only took like 15 meg of memory to run and I bet it's much easier for wine to run it. I'd kill to find it now.

Ok yea but that's kind of hollow. The discussion of the viability of gimp as an alternate to photoshop is essential to the issue of porting affinity to linux. This may not be a gimp *forum* but when it comes to photoshop alternatives on linux this practically is (rightfully) a gimp *thread*. The decision to move to a new platform is based on market and competition there, no? If we're talking about getting them to port to linux, that's the central issue.

Oh I'm probably confusing Mint with something else. Wait, although: https://www.bountysource.com/teams/linuxmint But obviously that looks third party.... anyway moving on: Yea, I don't understand your assertion about lowball bounty offers. If someone offers me $20 for something and I say no, how the hell am I obligated for anything? If you're a hot girl and you get asked out by some ugly guys should you disable your ability to be asked out at all? There's a bunch of fun metaphors here, the imagination runs wild. For that matter- lowball bounties can get supported much like a kickstarter project gets funding; "yea I want that feature too". I don't see a problem with that. I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Thank you. Yea I don't understand their logic, I think it's stupid. I first heard about bounties from Linux Mint (which I don't recommend), but I don't follow others closely enough. Anyway thanks, good to sadly know.

Ok fair enough on that point of contention, yes I have. (Your crowdfunding is actually a "donation" but yea yea we've already done that argument, ok fine.) About giving money to gimp developers hoping it'll pay off- this might be a useful FYI (forgive me if you already know) a lot of OSS projects, especially the big ones like GIMP, have "bounties", whereby (well you can guess), you can request a feature/alteration and provide a reward for it being implemented. I realize that's for smallish stuff, but nonetheless it talks to the issue at hand so it might be useful if you didn't already know.

When you say "more likely to put money towards" do you mean buy or donate? To Gimp you'd be donating, please tell me you wouldn't "donate" to Affinity Photo.

I didn't call anyone's idea "stupid". Oh wait- "silly", right? Ok I'll edit that and take out "silly"

Explain to me how I'm not playing nice.

I'll appeal to the audience does anyone else see it that way? Or is he copping out of a losing argument and not addressing my points whatsoever?

No. We're establishing common ground to leverage Serif to do it.

A kickstarter campaign for this is as absurd as if I were to consider buying a stock and I start a campaign "I think this stock will go up but I'm not sure, so can someone give me money to take the risk".

I don't like the logic of Coolermaster for doing that or anyone who supported it (or the concept of it). I'd pay money to *subtract* from their kickstarter fund as punishment for insulting us. Ok, Imagine if Microsoft started a gofundme project. How completely insane would that be? You'd pitch in? Kickstarter and gofundme are for small endeavors to get off the ground. (And/or individuals with financial problems that are of no fault of the their own.) As for "voting with our dollars" haha, no the way we "vote with our dollars" is whether or not we buy a product. Not give free money for a company to make it. What you're advocating it letting companies push the burden of risk onto the consumer. No, that's no how business works. The producer has the burden. It's called capitalism. "ROI". EDIT: I took out the word "silly" apparently that's like "extreme" or something. bog

It might've been worth it to RTFT before posting; the idea of doing crowd-funding for a private company is absurd. This isn't like crowdfunding an open source project. Why the hell would we be paying for a private company (as in not open source) to make a profit from funding their development? That makes no sense. Here: would you do a "pay-before-model fundraising" for a Microsoft product?

Wait you mean give money to serif to do it??!! hahahaaaaahhahaa They're not open source man. It's like, hey serif, here's our money for you to make a new product to profit from. haha

The above is nearly word for word what I was going to come here and post. I'll add: Serif, The majority of people running linux are developer types, and even if they're just exclusively programmers (don't create media of their own), they usually end up having to deal with files handed to them from designers, and sometimes have to massage the media (images, video, and whatever adobe crap) on the fly for some small modification to cram it into the application. So you could pretty much look at the percentage of linux share in the OS desktop market as a mostly developers; mostly fertile ground. (Hell, given the lack of adobe support, not even just "fertile", but "virgin"!) In other words you shouldn't be going by overall OS market share and multiplying by the same fraction to calculate potential customers to each OS. Most typical windows or macos users aren't the type that would buy your products, right, not everyone wants to edit media. You should be going by the percentage of users of each OS that would likely buy, and if you do, the bar charts resolve in a different way. So throw in numbers here, for windows users call it, I don't know (I have no idea) but call it 10% use adobe software. Macos, Maybe what 20% use adobe software since mac users do visual stuff. (I'm throwing these stupid numbers out as examples, I bet you have legitimate metrics, but let's just use those to contrast each other.) Well, what's the percentage of likely linux users (mostly developers) for your product (or adobe products)? I'm gonna say that the number is like 80%. And then when calculating the potential of the linux market you add a third factor; the fact that adobe products aren't available in linux. (Which isn't there in the MacOS and Windows' calculations.) You get it now? I'm not saying linux will be a *bigger* market, I'm saying that you're looking at this unilaterally when you should be looking multilaterally. Lastly I know you don't like anecdotes but before I finally fully jumped from windows to ubuntu 5 years ago, I made a list of what applications I'd need. There were only four holdouts that I couldn't get for linux, three of them were adobe products. Photoshop, illustrator, premiere. If it hadn't been for them I would've switched 10 years ago instead of 5. In other words, wag the dog, the linux share of the OS market might be bigger if serif would support linux! Your mind blown. Oh wait- here's the killer: When I installed windows in a Virtualbox (which is a pain and drains resources), am I going to install affinity stuff or pirate adobe? I'm sorry but obviously I'd pirate adobe. Whereas, if I could avoid the headache and sloth of virtualbox and just buy your stuff I'd totally do it.

Thanks will do.

Yea that FAQ entry doesn't add anything here. I know you're not supporting linux right now. (My question doesn't indicate that I know that???)

You're competing with Adobe and you're missing out on an obvious opportunity. Adobe doesn't support linux, and it's nearly 2021 so they probably never will. You can be the one that supports linux. Start with Ubuntu, they're the most established, they'll tell you how to easily monetize your application. And don't just point at gimp as a reason not to compete, because you offer products that compete with more that just photoshop. Adobe left a gap. Fill the gap. Duh.