Leaving-Adobe

ah thanks! And so did I! Now it has 700mb - still too much. Then I tried @miketo's Tipp from his first post - that worked. So there must have been an image in my "empty" file, too. Well, strange but solved! Thanks you two!

you mean I have to buy a new version in order to be able to work with my existing licence on that file?

cool, thanks. But: What is "V2"?? And the history has been the same in the 34mb-Version, so that is not the point

both! saving as -> 885mb, save -> 1,06gb

Hey @MikeTO! 1.10.6 on M1 But if there is NO image at all in the file?!

Same with my current Version 1.10.6. The .afpub file still works so I would call it corrupted but each time I save it it grows. The original 34mb file became in the first step 845mb and then grew save-by-save until 1,1gb. I have 24pages - so I would want to copy all of them to a new document. Preparing this answer I realiced that rather the whole build must be corrupted: I killed one element after the next in order to find the error. I saved several steps, all 1,06gb fat files. In the end I had a BLANK PAGE. 1,06 gb. Thats so crazy that I opene up a new thread. Did it happen in/with another file to you?! Sebastian

Hi! I was just about to write below this post. Now the situation is so absurd that I better opened up a new thread: My Publisher made a usual 34mb file become 855mb after opening and saving it. The second time saving made it 1,07gb. Deleting the elements and pages took some 200/300 mb,then it rose again. Attached you find the "end": A blank document weighing 1,06gb. Wow. Other files I created or re-opened/saved behave normally. Any idea what that is? How can I "save" the original 34mb file?! Thanks and all the best Sebastian

I just face the same. Disabled automatic brightness adjustment within macOS, but it doesn't help. Disabled also the second option. Neither helps. Do I have to reboot?! Whats also new under M1+Monterey 12.4. (compared to Intel + Big Sur) is that exporting some letters change );

No seriously working DTP person would "just install" a him/her totally unknown programm that - moreaover - is not just "same same as Indesign" and print a book, work sth. out or whatever. They had to get used to it in order to "guarantee" the qualitiy they stand for. Do you pay their hours to do so, too? My DTP and visual collegues learned Adobes Creative Suite as I did 20 years ago at university od arts. After aprox 20-30h working with publisher I would say "ok, I get along with it", but exporting a print pdf for a expensive book or so - puh...one wring setting and you waste thousands of euros and lose possibly a customer or two...

Wouldn't altering IDML piss off a lot of Indesign users, too? What does altering mean concerning re-adaption. Is this really a point?

"Not intented" doesn't mean it's illegal. So far I've not seen one concrete point why AP isn't supporting IDML. Furthermore it irritates me that this point "INDD is a closed format" is repeated and repeated again. What for? Do you want to compare with greedy Adobe? No. Is there a easily handable alternative within Adobe Indesign? Yes. It's not about INDD, it's about IDML

Stupid me! Thanks!

It's already embarassing to ask my service provider "Sorry dude, my Affinity Publisher could read your kindly provided .idml file but isn't able to export one. Could you please use this and that (add on / work around etc.) in order to..." But even if we were willing to handle that problem by passing it to our partners: the 200$ Converter mentioned here is discontinued. Why could that be? Am I one of just a few publisher fans that isn't working in a "affinity bubble" but rather trying to CONVINCE the de facto Adobe users to also swop to Affinity. How could I convince them if they are not even able to have a look on my work?! Could someone responsible pls. explain again, why exactly it is not affordable to invest in an export option that writes the currently (!) used .idml standard?

Do Affinity's programmers / deciders really think that Adobe would alter its .idml-specs as soon as Publisher is able to export into it? And even if they did: Isn't the hassle to adapt to eventual changes in .idml worth it - comparing to the trouble we professionals have NOT BEING ABLE AT ALL to share our work with the rest of the world who still mayorily uses Indesign? Isn't that ignoring facts? To let us Publisher fans force or at least convince service providers or collegues to "also buy, install and learn" Affinity isn't nice. To say "Well then you're better off staying with Adobe"s subscription trap hell, neither. To be honest: I just realice Affinity Publisher is a dead end road concerning colaboation – i would have never though that and it annoys and saddens me. 😞 Sebastian

Echt krass, wenn Affinity eine Format-Sackgasse wäre und bliebe!