wonderings

I think it will come eventually, we are still on V1 and they have tons of amazing features for the price point. As much as I want those things added I always feel greedy as it is all pretty amazing for what you pay for the software.

Not sure if there would be issues with this method being as there are a few ways of buying the software. Apple App store, Windows App Store, iOS store and lastly directly from Serif. I do prefer the method you described which is a common way for most applications, I think most if not all people who use software are used to something like that. Would be curious to know if this was possible with the current setup or if because of the various stores to buy from this would create trouble.

I do not think anyone is making the claim Publisher is better, I know I would not make that claim. I love Indesign personally and most of my work is done in Indesign. It is nice to have some other options though outside of Quark which I always find surprising when I get files made in Quark. Even the newer versions feel so antiquated compared to Indesign. Publisher has a great start though and is feature rich.

My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of offerings both free and paid that can do a whole host of things.

There is a lot more you will need to check. Placed PSD files, EPS files, among other things. You can never expect a file being converted to work in software that did not create it to be perfect so you should always be on the look out for any issues and correct as needed.

You have to use IDML files from Indesign to open with Publisher. INDD files will not open with Publisher. Be warned that opening an Indesign file in Publisher is not going to give you perfect conversion results. Double check all your work and correct as needed.

I guess it probably comes down to capitalism then. Why give an inch to a competitor, even a really small one. I never use Bridge but am curious, does it display native working files for other apps not developed or owned by Adobe? Like a CDR or QXD file, will they display in Bridge?

Is it Adobe's issue that Bridge cannot display Affinity files? I thought I remember reading a while back on this forum that the closed nature of Affinities applications and formats makes this difficult without them opening up some of their proprietary code, or whatever it is. The assumption that Affinity is all open is far from the truth, it is very closed off. I do not think it is a bad thing, they want to make money, they make a great product for a great price. Just giving away what they have would probably not be a smart thing.

I think you should search the site, I remember reading somewhere that someone had problems with Amazon KDP. Not sure if it has ever been resolved.

First off do not expect anything you have done in Adobe to open perfectly in Affinity, you will have issues. I would recommend doing a test if you have not done so already. Take a month and do everything with the Affinity apps. This will be a quick and easy way for you to see how the apps handle the things you need to do. If/when you move to Affinity and cancel Adobe I would not reset what needs to be reset or just do all new jobs in Affinity. I have a bunch of old Quark files from when we transitioned to Indesign. Over time the ones that I needed got reset, the rest are there more as historical records of jobs we have done. If I really needed to grab something from them I would just get a demo fo the software, open, save to PDF. The things that generally get reprinted are stationary and those are generally not all that complex. Magazine and other publications would be ever changing with each new issue so should be no real need to open past Adobe files for those once you have reset in Affinity. You can also sign up for Adobe at any time, do what you need to do and then cancel.

To have the colours stand out I would think they would lay down a white layer and then print the colour on top so the colour is not lost on the wood. I know we do this for coloured vinyl and other materials. Regarding the colour profile they could do what a lot of print shops do, mine included, use the profile that came with the printer. I am sure I could get a profile for our wide format printers and flat beds, I mean there has to be one, but nothing special or specific is used here. If you are going to be picky about colour your best bet is probably deal with someone locally rather then across the planet (assuming you are not in China). Locally you can work with someone maybe even get a small proof of your colours on the material that will be used.

We have a standard and for that standard to work well you need to use software that can handle what the program that created that file is capable of. Affinity is not that at the moment and not sure it will ever be unless they match feature for feature. You can setup something in Microsoft Word using a feature that only Word has. Doc files are pretty standard I would say but if Open Office cannot do what you did in Word then you are going to have issues opening in Open Office. Standard formats only work if every application that can work with that standard all match feature for feature. If you want to work with people using Adobe the best simplest way is to use Adobe. Nothing Affinity can do will make it a flawless and seamless option to collaborate between 2 pieces of software that work differently and offer different features and some similar features.

Affinity is far more closed off than Adobe. Is there any software you can use a native Affinity file with? Can you drop a designer or photos file in a video editing app or an office app like Word? On the other hand I can use native PSD and AI files in various applications from video editing to presentation tools and apps like Microsoft Word. Is there any indication from Affinity that they want to be a standard? If so they would need to start opening things up themselves.

Standard formats only work if all the applications opening the standard format can do the same thing. If I create in Indesign and save as an IDML file which is more open relatively speaking, it does not change anything when Publisher cannot open the IDML file in the same way as Indesign. Yes it will open that IDML file but it will not be correct. So the standard does not really solve the problem. Graphics are complex and this is well beyond basic formatting of text. You would need to ensure all applications that can work with this standard format all offer the same feature set in order to open the files correctly. If not it may open some fine and others not, you would be left in a state of all ways needing to check that nothing went wonky when originally creating in Publisher and the next person opening in Indesign. Headaches are still there and will always be there. A standard of software, the tool itself makes life much much simpler knowing the person before is working with the same tools I am and I can thus continue to work know my tools created the project in the first place.

Standardization makes the industry hum along, if everyone was using different applications it would be a nightmare. Schools teach it for a few reasons, one which I would think is the main reason is it is the standard. I am sure they get some kick backs from Adobe as well as it is in Adobes interest to keep people using their software. At a pro level I want a standard and to know I can count on files not having silly weirdness to it which happens when people bring in files created in other programs (not all the time but enough). With Adobe positioned in the mainstream for pro use I do not see why they would want to try and go after the home user. I think the Affinity applications are very affordable for anyone who wants software that operates at the level it does. It is feature rich and many features in the pro area where you could make a living with the software. Will all the cheap or free applications out there it has made people expect to get a lot for practically nothing. There is a reason people are asking for all sorts of software for Affinity to start developing it is because they are wanting something powerful for cheap. The ability to manipulate photos or do vector work or page layout with so many features and options should not be cheap and to expect software with the amount of features in it that Affinity has is just greedy on the users part I think, wanting all for next to nothing. You are getting a lot for your dollar with Affinity.

I think people do not want to buck the trend, I don't. I like where we are with a standard in my industry (print and graphic design). The issues I see all come when people create in software other than Adobe. Be it Canva, Microsoft, GIMP, or whatever else people find. These create headaches to get to work. Some are simpler then others. Last week I had a 72 page brochure come in that was all set in Excel. Now this is an extreme example and thankfully not the norm but boy was that fun fixing up to try and use what they had rather then completely reset from scratch. People can do weird things with Adobe as well but those are much more manageable and easier to fix and figure out. For home use if I did not have my Adobe account I would be using Affinity without a doubt. I have a 44" wide format printer at home that I am going to start selling posters on the side from and if needed Affinity would work fine for that light use. But if I had a choice I would stay with Adobe for familiarity and knowing it is the standard almost everyone uses on top of it being good software and feature rich.

The iPad is still an iPad at the end of the day. Though it would be cool to see apps like Affinity and Adobe to be more like their desktop counterparts especially since you can use a mouse and keyboard on an iPad. For me it would be the only way I could use these apps on an iPad, especially Publisher/Indesign.

Are people really that dissatisfied? I know in some ways I am not happy with Apple's direction but they keep on selling and keep on raising the price and keep on selling. I would say the same with Adobe, their user numbers are not dropping, I believe they are actually rising. The software is not priced for hobbyists, these are pro level applications made for professionals who make their living with the software. Affinity fits really well in that hobbyist segment offering amazing features for a really great price and some can even use it professionally. I am curious about VirtualBox, I know the software, never used it though. Is the performance because of VirtualBox or do all (assuming there is more software for virtualization) VM software run bad on Linux? I run Parallels on my Mac and have done so for years and it runs amazingly well.

Think I would disagree with you on designers being more tech literate, at least from my own experience. I have found designers can do some great things with the apps they use but it generally ends there, and that is the good designers who know how to design for the medium they are designing for.

I don't see you having bleed in your screen shot. Looks like your image stops at the sheet edge.

Still not sure why font management software would not work for this. No system folders to drop fonts in, just the front program and activate, deactivate when done.

I don't think they generally announce that they plan to include something till it is in beta. I would suggest finding software that works for what you need now and keep an eye on the release notes for Affinity updates.

Looks like lots of good free options out there then. Not something I think Affinity would need to add to any of their software.

Are people really interested in this anymore? I remember it was a fad for a bit that was some years ago. I am sure there are people here and there just wondering how big a market this is at the moment as the fad seems to be done and gone. What app did you use? I like that it made it looks like polaroids

I just downloaded one called Turbo MosaicLite from he Apple App store. Was simple and quick. Selected the folder that had the pictures I wanted to use, selected the picture I wanted to be the main picture and in 5 mins going through a couple hundred pictures it had finished.