Chills

Jou can always just wait untill the next offer comes along (there will be next offers)  But remeber: Adobe won't let you cancel without paying the remainder of your subscription fee so is it really a better deal to stay there while you wait for another 50% offer from serif?

Price and market are a complicated matter anyway, especially when there is a competitor…

marktwirtschaft eier preis.mp4

Unfortunately, the price vs performance ratio is completely irrelevant, because the magic word "discount" is simply missing, thanks to which the customer can only be satisfied 🙂

Just continue using the 6 months trial and then buy it in the Black Friday sale which they have historically had over the years

I was testing the free trail. When the suit was 50% off. Now i
I decid ro buy it. But apperently the 50% is no more. 
 
I just feel the 50% should be considered for those who started or had the trail running during the offer. Specially for speciality software like that where we need time to learn and move from one software to another. 
 
I missed my chance now i am back to adobe since i missed the offer. 

Your logic escapes me: apparently you would have purchased Affinity (presumably because you like it), if you could still have it at half price. Now, however, you'd rather pay a subscription to Adobe for evermore, than buy Affinity at the normal price (which is still very good value)!
 

Is there anything else to say on this subject?

@Dan C  We DEMAND a CP/M port of Affinity.   Also OS/2 Users are feeling neglected as are those of us using Solaris.... 🙂
It is Monday afternoon and this thread is still feeling like it is a Friday afternoon thread.
 

I did explain why from a commercial point of view, Linux is a non-starter for Affinity.
Someone else added that the GUI that Affinity use is not supported on Linux. I had not realized this point, but it adds to my general comments.  In that, Affinity would have to redesign the whole system to use a GUI that would work across all three platforms.  A hell of a lot of work on its own that would make it not cost-effective for a company to do.
The result was a lot of "whining and begging"  from Linux Devotees. It didn't silence anything.
The answer for the short and medium term is: There will be no Linux version of Affinity. 
Can we leave it at that

@Dan C  We DEMAND a CP/M port of Affinity.   Also OS/2 Users are feeling neglected as are those of us using Solaris.... 🙂
It is Monday afternoon and this thread is still feeling like it is a Friday afternoon thread.
 

How would it help them?
The answer is there are no plans to support Linux. That tells them everything they need to know. They have two choices:
use a different OS: macOS or Windows; or use a different set of products. Knowing why Serif does not choose to support Linux does not give them any additional choices.

No one is being forced to do anything.   The older PC's will still run Win10.  (and Affinity)  The reason for the TPM in Win11 is the corporate word wanted it.  You know, the companies with thousands, or 100s or even just dozens of PC's. The Business world wanted it.  Gamers and most Geeks are already using far more modern and powerful hardware than most business users.   As are the video, photo, graphics and publishing users. So we are talking about a few home users and small businesses.

Because there is a roadmap for Microsoft Windows, the discussion about the addition of the TPM hardware to motherboards didn't happen when Win 11 was released in 2021 but way back in the very early 2010s (if not before  EDIT there were discussions about this sort of thing in the 2000s at industry conferences for other things)  and most motherboards from 2014 will handle Win11.  PC's that won't handle Win 11 will be over a decade old.  Those will still run Win 10 and Affinity.
No one panicked when the BIOS companies removed support for 5.25 floppies and then the 3.5 floppies....
No PC from at least the last decade will handle floppies.
No one panicked when they stopped doing ISA slots.  (or any of the systems since)
Hardware evolves.
So does software: There are many apps that now need 64bit systems to run. They won't run on 32-bit systems.
BTW I have old PC's that won't run Win11, but that is because I need to run some old In Circuit Emulators (ICE) and some compilers that need Win7  
So when you look behind the panic stories with an agenda, you find there is nothing to worry about.
If your only view is a religious hammer, everything is a nail.

No one is being forced to do anything.   The older PC's will still run Win10.  (and Affinity)  The reason for the TPM in Win11 is the corporate word wanted it.  You know, the companies with thousands, or 100s or even just dozens of PC's. The Business world wanted it.  Gamers and most Geeks are already using far more modern and powerful hardware than most business users.   As are the video, photo, graphics and publishing users. So we are talking about a few home users and small businesses.

Because there is a roadmap for Microsoft Windows, the discussion about the addition of the TPM hardware to motherboards didn't happen when Win 11 was released in 2021 but way back in the very early 2010s (if not before  EDIT there were discussions about this sort of thing in the 2000s at industry conferences for other things)  and most motherboards from 2014 will handle Win11.  PC's that won't handle Win 11 will be over a decade old.  Those will still run Win 10 and Affinity.
No one panicked when the BIOS companies removed support for 5.25 floppies and then the 3.5 floppies....
No PC from at least the last decade will handle floppies.
No one panicked when they stopped doing ISA slots.  (or any of the systems since)
Hardware evolves.
So does software: There are many apps that now need 64bit systems to run. They won't run on 32-bit systems.
BTW I have old PC's that won't run Win11, but that is because I need to run some old In Circuit Emulators (ICE) and some compilers that need Win7  
So when you look behind the panic stories with an agenda, you find there is nothing to worry about.
If your only view is a religious hammer, everything is a nail.

As I understand it, the problem with porting doesn't come from the programming language, but from the framework being used. Some, like qt and gtk are cross-platform including Linux, while others, like the one used for Affinity, are not. This is the reason why it is, to my understanding, still not economic to port Affinity to Linux. Maybe we will see changes in the future, like a web-based version that runs in the browser (although I'm not a big fan of that) or Serif/Canva may take the decision to move to another framework which makes porting easier. 

I am a member of the Technical Support team at Affinity - part of that role includes moderating the Forums, which is what I have done in this thread.
It is neither my decision to make, nor part of my role to understand the reasons behind the current business decisions, the nuances of software development across multiple apps and platforms, or the financial incentives required to increase the development overheads for supporting additional OS's, such as Linux or Android.
My role is to echo what has already been said - which is that we have no plans at this time for Affinity on Linux.

@Chills& @Frozen Death Knight - please can you both take a deep breath and a step back from this thread.
I'd like to remind you of the Forum Guidelines as the last few posts in this thread aren't the type of behaviour we expect from our users here.
We have left a few Linux threads unlocked here on the Forums, mainly for users who want to add their voice for the request of Affinity to be ported to Linux, or for users who are helping others run Affinity on Linux unofficially, such as the Affinity on WINE thread.
We do not need, and do not want threads that circle around the discussion of the viability of Linux as a platform, the amount of market share the OS has, the pros and cons of Linux etc.
These discussions have no bearing on the Affinity apps currently, or our developers potential of porting the software to Linux in the future.
If you wish to discuss the broader subject of Linux, please do this on another site - as the Affinity Forums are first and foremost a support platform for Affinity users, on the OS's we officially support.
Many thanks for your understanding.

Errr there isn't a Linux version of Affinity and so far Affinity have said there won't be. 
So apart from the Engineering , statistics and project management arguments I am right as regards affinity.
You can dream otherwise but some of us have to work in reality.
 

It has been explained by me and others. You just don't understand the explanations.

Oh dear.  This conversation is at an end.  You clearly have no understanding of operating systems and architectures.  Neither it seems, statistics and trends or the commercial costs of software development.  Nor for that matter long term project control. 

You just have a bias for Linux driven by emotion.
Despite what you think, I am not "anti-Linux" per se.  I am running two Linux machines here also 3 Mac's and 6 PCs. The PC's range from Win 11 to Win7 because I need to run some old ICE.   (This was when I was porting a POSIX RTOS and writing device drivers for it. ) 
The problem is the Linux market needs a LOT of work to support it, far more than either Windows or MAC but the Linux market is a fraction the size.  You would never recover your investment.  The Mac market is a smaller than Windows but most of its users are in media and are happy to spend serious money on apps.

SO you are admitting you don't understand the problem or the argument’s.
You will never understand why Linux will not go over 5% market share and why most commercial outfits won't support it.
I did point you are the explanation as to why the Linux architecture is flawed.  You didn't understand it, and that was a simplified explanation.
Both myself and Agrafka explained why your grasp of statistics is flawed but, you don't understand that.
We touched on the problems of developing for Linux (100s of parallel versions) but you miss represented that and either don't understand the basics or are wilfully misunderstanding.
Then complaining that because you don't understand, no one has explained it to you.  I am not sure how to simplify it further.

Oh dear.  This conversation is at an end.  You clearly have no understanding of operating systems and architectures.  Neither it seems, statistics and trends or the commercial costs of software development.  Nor for that matter long term project control. 

You just have a bias for Linux driven by emotion.
Despite what you think, I am not "anti-Linux" per se.  I am running two Linux machines here also 3 Mac's and 6 PCs. The PC's range from Win 11 to Win7 because I need to run some old ICE.   (This was when I was porting a POSIX RTOS and writing device drivers for it. ) 
The problem is the Linux market needs a LOT of work to support it, far more than either Windows or MAC but the Linux market is a fraction the size.  You would never recover your investment.  The Mac market is a smaller than Windows but most of its users are in media and are happy to spend serious money on apps.

No it isn't. It has been at 4% many times before. That is the point it never gets anywhere but is always going to get to critical mass "next year"
You have the explanation on the architecture but don't understand it.  If you don't understand the simple explanation then you are not going to understand the technical explanation. It gets quite deep.   BTW Windows also runs on ARM and other MCU's. 
In short you don't actually understand OS and RTOS architectures you are just biased to Linux.

This is something Linus Torvalds has said repeatedly at conferences for over a decade.  He explains why Linux in its current form will *never* be a mainstream desktop OS.   In any case (Hello Andrew Tanenbaum)  Linux is fatally flawed in its architecture.  It is NOT a UNIX just because it has a nearly POSIX API.  I have worked on POSIX RTOS that were cleared at 61508 SIL 3 and Do188 DALA Both areas you can't use Linux at all.
To get Linux to ever have more than 4% of the desktop you are going to have to re-design the architecture and how the community puts Linux together. 
For the youngsters out there back in the 1990s DELL (and I think HP) offered computers with a choice of Windows or Linux per installed.  I think that lasted about 12 months.

So Linux has gone from non-existent to insignificant.  Wow! it does this in cycles over the years.  It has always been "the next big thing" but always next year.  There was no where near enough uptake of Linux for DELL and HP to carry on doing Linux versions. Otherwise lots of other people would be giving the option as well.
As a generic desktop system for normal users (not geeks and nerds)  it is, as Linus points out not going to fly.  Particularly with the serious design flaws it has. This will require some major re-engineering.  Actually this was being discussed in a SW  Engineering group for critical systems professionals after the last Windows screw-up.
As for the fundamental flaws.... you should know them or you have no real understanding of the Linux architecture. Start with the famous Tanenbaum-Torvold debate which gives an overview.  Most Linux users are coders and programmers with very little or no understanding of OS and RTOS architectures. Remember the initial Design was done by a student railing against an OS that was deliberately restrictive. Linux was made very open (and i don't mean open source)

It is snobbishisum with some people but Apple MAC and OSX/IOS are VERY big in the professional graphics, media, photo and publishing world.    Apple MAC's feature very heavily in those areas globally.  So their first port of call for a Tablet is one that seamlessly integrates with their working environment. I.e. an Apple iPad.   Hence affinity on iPad makes a LOT of sense, especially as Apple is doing a lot to make movement between MAC and iPad seamless.
That said a lot of people are moving to PC's from MACs However..... even these people tend to (still)  have iPads. 
There is no connection between a MAC and Android or one between PC and Android.
So a port to Android is not likely, but not impossible.