dcr

I'm not trying to sell anyone on Designer or VS. I have both. I'm explaining why I prefer Affinity v1's licensing scheme. I would strongly prefer if Designer had the features I need to use VS for but, for the most part, I've been able to do in Designer what I need to do. I tend to use software for a long, long time. So, I prefer to use software I do not expect to have a problem running in the future.

And that's what I like about it.

It says in the documentation that an Internet connection is required for it to communicate with the server. And that was my experience when I installed it. I have Apple IIe programs I can still run. If I need it, I'll find a way. But, if it requires Internet activation, I likely will not be able to do so.

It is a deciding factor for me. I want to be sure that, should the need arise, I can open a file in the original software that created it. It's becoming increasingly less common, especially with PDFs, but it still does happen. With Internet activation, there is no guarantee I will be able to re-install and use the software I paid for in the future. The company could go out of business, shut down the servers, or whatever. In that case, it's more of a rental than an actual license. And I'm not doing rentals. And that, for me, is a problem with VS. If it were like Affinity where, once I had the license code, I could re-install as needed without requiring any Internet communication, it would be different. But, if it requires an Internet connection to be installed, I consider it as unreliable for my needs. That is, I will use it to get things done if necessary, but I'm moving things into something I know I will be able to use in the future. If not for Affinity, I would most likely be switching over to open source applications instead. It's not about money. It's about being able to use the software both now and at some unknown date in the future. Maybe most people don't have occasion to open a thirty year old file, but I've come across it often enough that I consider it beneficial to be able to do so. Again, that's just me though. But that's why I prefer the licensing system Serif is currently using for the v1 Affinity apps.

Unless they changed something since I purchased, the only thing I needed was eMail to receive my license key. With that, I can install and "activate" the software on a computer without the Internet at all. I tested this on a machine that has no Internet connectivity. Installed Publisher, entered my license key and--voila!--it works.

In my case, I will not use VectorStyler as my main design application because of the licensing process that requires an Internet connection. Too much like Adobe for my liking. With Affinity (at least the v1 apps--who knows what might change with v2), I enter my license key and the program works, no Internet connection required. So I know that I will be able to use (and re-install if/when necessary) the Affinity apps (at least those purchased direct from Serif) regardless of Internet connectivity or regardless if the company keeps the "activation server" running. I've already been burned by Adobe; I have no intention of repeating that. That is one of the reasons I prefer to use Designer. When I use VectorStyler, it's to do a specific task and then I bring that into Designer. Plus, the UI in Designer is, well, better.

Features are tough. I see people post that certain features are "must have" and they are things I have never used in over thirty years of using Adobe (and Aldus) products but everyone needs something different. I got along fine with PageMaker 5 for I don't know how many years. Then PM6 (or maybe it was PM6.5) introduced data merge. Then that became a must-have. Was disappointing when Affinity Publisher didn't have it, but they did add it so that was good. I forget which version of PageMaker introduced the "build booklet" feature. Got along fine before it, but that made things so much easier. Early versions were still buggy, so sometimes you had to do it the "old-fashioned" way, but they eventually got it sorted out. So, that became a must-have feature too. However, nowadays it's more of a nicety than a must-have because the software on the digital press manages that now. I still use Illustrator CS3 as well as Designer and VectorStyler. Can get somewhat confusing at times as I go to do something in Illustrator then remember it's something I can do in Designer, not Illustrator. Or vice versa. I am hoping Designer v2 adds my must-have features so I can just use Designer rather than Designer and VectorStyler. Nothing against VectorStyler; it's just easier if I can do everything in one application.

I would also suggest it not be a setting that could be easily changed by accidentally hitting the wrong button or keystroke. Bury it in a menu somewhere so that changing it one way or the other requires a more deliberate action on the part of the user. One reason for that is that I hate the trackpad on my MacBook Pro because Apple decided the make the whole thing a button, so it's easy for the corner of your hand to bump the cursor and click something you didn't want to click and I'd hate to do a lot of work in a file then accidentally hit a button to close the file and lose it all.

For sure. When that other company went full evil, I hedged my bets. I bought QuarkXPress and signed up for the Publisher beta and then bought it when available. Also Scribus. Because who knew who might have the best chance at being a reasonable InDesign alternative? Honestly, I think Quark had a good chance but they can't seem to hit the target. They end up shooting themselves in the foot every time. People complain about Serif? Try Quark. Good grief. Now they've moved to a system that requires you to connect to the Internet every five days to keep your license activated, otherwise QuarkXPress won't work. This was part of their idea of making license management easier on users. LOL. No. It's a pain. What if I don't have Internet access when I need to get something done? One less customer for Quark. With Affinity Publisher v1, I can install it, activate it and use it all without ever being connected to the Internet. Well, I need the Internet to buy it and get the serial number but, after that, I don't need to worry about Internet connectivity at all. I would have probably been better off taking the money I spent on Quark and buying more Affinity licenses to help support them or donating to Scribus towards their development.

I'm there with you. As a paying customer, it's an inconvenience. Sometimes a major one. My first install with that other company where they had Internet activation, the hard drive crashed in the computer as did the second hard drive. So, two activations used up and, since the hard drives were toast, they could not be deactivated. So, any time I needed to install on a new computer, I had to call that other company, wait on hold, finally get through, explain the whole thing and then go through whatever they had me do to activate it. Next computer and next upgrade . . . the logic board failed. There's an activation gone that can't be deactivated. And then that other company finally offered non-activation versions. Did they tell registered users? Nope. So, by the time I found out, poof!, gone. Did any of that stop pirates? No. But, me, a paying user, well, that other company basically treats you like you're nothing. It's an inconvenience, a pain in the neck and sometimes prevents you from using the software you paid for. So, no, never again. If I can't "activate" and use software without an Internet connection, I'll pass. I pay for the software I use. Sure, sometimes when it's on sale or at upgrade pricing because, well, I'm not stupid. If they're going to give me a deal, I'm not going to pass it up. Regardless, I'm paying, not pirating. I'm not interested in renting software. If I buy a license to use it, I want to be able to use it as long as I have something that can run the OS required for the software to run.

I bought Publisher at the pre-release price. Designer and Photo I bought through the App Store way back when and I don't remember what I paid for those. Possibly half-off. And that would have been half off the previous $49 price. But I think they make additional money from brush packs and art packs and stuff like that? I would guess that a good chunk of their user base are people that strongly dislike subscriptions because that was a driving factor for a lot of people to switch over to Affinity. There are two applications I have that are sort of subscription-based. You can subscribe and you get all updates during your subscription period for free. But, once your subscription lapses, you can continue to use the last version that was released during your subscription. One controls it by Internet activation (which I'm not keen on) and the other by restricting downloads to active subscribers.

That's how Adobe started with CC. Don't want to subscribe? You can still buy a perpetual license. Yup. And, now, if you own a perpetual license, there's a good chance you can't activate it again if you need to reinstall for any reason, so that perpetual license was more like a rental with an indeterminate period. It would be concerning for me if Affinity started down that route. Plus, the applications are only $55 each. Even at $99 each, it's a better value than Adobe. And Serif seems to have occasional 25% and 50% off sales. Buy one at a time if you need to. Wait for a sale. Now that's fine by me. But, even if they don't, it's still a good deal. Of course, we have no idea what the pricing will be. For all we know, they stuffed a boatload of new features in v2 and will be asking $149 per application. That's still a better deal than Adobe. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm perfectly happy with $55 ea.

This is not a problem unique to Affinity. Happens with people using products from that evil subscription company too. No.

I know this is an old thread, but I'm going to +1 this too. I've used Fireworks since version 1 when it was still a Macromedia product. A lot of things it can do are doable in other applications, but the animated GIF feature is one that is sorely missed. Being able to have multiple frames each with their own layers is a big help. A lot of the shapes and whatnot used in Fireworks are vector so if you need to go back later and resize larger, it's easy and you don't lose resolution. And, finally, being able to set how long each individual frame will display before going to the next one is very nice as is being able to define whether it plays once or in a continuous loop. All those controls are useful. And, being able to do all that within one program without having to do the frames in one program and marry them together in another and whatnot is very convenient.

For perspective, another company whose software I use (infrequently, mind you) hasn't released an update in nine years. And the next version has been "coming soon" for six years. On the flip side, if you ask them a question on their forums, they typically respond within a day or two.

That might be the tricky area for Serif. If they were to come out and say, yes, we're building a product suite to compete with and knock down Adobe, that puts a target on their back by Adobe. If they were trying to stay off Adobe's radar, they could say, look, we're just building a product suite for the home user and small, semi-pro user and not trying to compete with Adobe, then they lose customers who hoped Serif was building toward being a solid competitor. If Serif says little or nothing, some customers may worry but also Adobe might be like, yeah, Serif is like a gnat: annoying to us but not deadly. And, then, you know, they drop the sledgehammer with v3 and--BAM!--Adobe never realizes what hit them.

Thank goodness. If Adobe were to buy them, that would be the end of Serif/Affinity. Probably the same with Corel. If the next "big thing" isn't a v2 release, maybe it's a name change from Serif to Affinity. Or maybe both.

Yes. I have v1 of Affinity Designer, Photo and Publisher. But, I have the Mac App Store versions for Designer and Photo and I'm tempted to buy licenses direct from Affinity because I trust I'd be able to install and "activate" them ten years from now should the need arise. Not as confident about the Mac App Store versions. On the other hand, if v2 versions will open v1 files without issue, then that may not be a necessity.

VectorStyler is like WOW! It can do a lot of things, including a lot of things AD cannot (yet?), which is why a lot of people here recommend it as a companion to AD. Plus, VS + AD is still far less expensive than Illustrator. That said, VectorStyler's UI is not the greatest and, for a while, the documentation was minimal which meant that you knew VS could do things but how to do them was a big question. The documentation has improved a lot, but still the UI is not the most intuitive. I generally learn by playing around but it's difficult to play around in VS (as opposed to Designer, Illustrator, Amadine, Inkscape and others) because the intuitiveness needs work. I know the developer was always quick on bug fixes. I don't know if the developer is "attached" to the UI or not. I don't use VS enough to suggest improvements because I would need to be more familiar with it to do so. But, if the developer addresses UI issues as he's addressed bug fixes, maybe it would be worthwhile for those more familiar with VS to suggest UI improvements, maybe even present mockups like some people in the forums here suggest for Affinity products. VectorStyler is amazing, and I've mentioned in other threads that I wouldn't mind if Serif bought Numeric Path and merged VS with Designer, but the UI needs improvement for VS to reach its full potential, IMHO.

If it wasn't planned, then I couldn't check it off my list and then I wouldn't feel that sense of accomplishment.

If the proposed Affinity Utility was integrated with StudioLink, wouldn't you be able to vector trace the image in Affinity Utility then click on the Designer persona to finish working on it? Or, if you're in Designer, switch to the Affinity Utility persona to vector trace an image then switch back to Designer to finish?

Given the number of features that have made it into the v1 releases since I bought them, my guess is that the v2 releases are probably going to have a not insignificant number of new features to really qualify as v2 releases. If my guess is correct and if Affinity is sticking with the same licensing process for v2 as v1, I plan on buying the whole v2 suite on or around its release.

Inkscape reportedly can import CDR files. I don't know how well it does, but that might be an option for converting CDR files into something AD can open.

LOL. I get that it may take a while to fully catch-up with that other company, but, on the flip side, it feels like QXP is limping around with a broken leg and perhaps foaming at the mouth a little possibly due to rabies, so I would not be disappointed if Affinity went for the easy kill first, you know?

I would also +1 for a basic text/story editor similar to what's available in InDesign. I don't write directly in InDesign/Publisher, but for editing, it can make things easier, especially if you're talking about minor edits and not a major overhaul. Once you have the layout in the design program and formatted the way you like, you don't really want to re-import and re-format to get the changes in. And a story/text editor can make that easier than sorting through the document to find everything especially if the content spans multiple pages or, as others have mentioned, is wrapped around images or sideways and so on.