ChrisChiera

I currently use Sketch for UI work since that's the leader these days, even with Adobe attempting to capture users with XD and Invision trying to get users with Studio. I like many would love to use Serif products for everything, but so far Designer has seemed more devoted to an Illustrator replacement that being tailored to UI like Sketch, XD or Studio is. Perhaps Serif needs a dedicated UI product or maybe it's more a matter of having a UI mode in Designer. But for people wireframing and building quick UI designs it's in the details. One quick thing I noticed right away was how after creating an object it attempts to create a new one versus going back to the move tool like Sketch and the other UI apps. Read through this thread and completely agree with MasterEaster but then read through Dave Harris' replies where it seemed he was attempting to prove his point rather listening to what the issue is and why there is a potentially a better way. My immediate thought was the moderator is not a designer who uses the tool for UI for a living versus presumably MasterEaster, which ironically came up later in the thread where Mr. Harris mentions he's a developer. This issue affects a lot of companies where unfortuantely the great people making the apps don't have the same desires/needs as the actual customers the apps are built for. This post seems old so things may have changed but if not my suggestion would be to listen to very valid strongers like the one brought up here and then discuss them internally with the team on if it makes sense versus the more defensive explaining why they believe their way is 100% right. I look forward to the future and think though that the Affinity team is doing a lot of amazing work and will only get better.

Like I said glad to see your point of view on subscriptions, and that you were able to see someone else with a different view on subscriptions and great that we can all choose which companies we do and don't support with our dollars based on their products and business models. Will be interesting to see how it all works out and what model companies move to or revert back to.

Certainly possible, in which case it will be quite clear soon, as all the companies such as Adobe who are going subscription only will end up failing and go out of business or will return to the previous non subscription method because the majority of customers as you believe will not support subscriptions and they will have to change. Or if more and more continue to go to subscriptions and don't turn back, then it would seem that as I suggested the majority of people are willing to go embrace subscriptions. Yes, if a person violates the TOS then the company should remove access and stop billing the customer and the customer can choose a company that has restrictions that they are okay with or a company that allows violations for TOS. The restrictions with Adobe, Microsoft office, and other apps work for me, and if they didn't I would sign up for them. I've never been considered about a company cutting off access to an app I am using because the apps make sure in general to proactively stop you from violating such as not allowing you to activate on multiple computers. And if there was an issue the company would presumably contact me to warn me of the issue since they would want to keep me as a paying customer. But yes,as noted in each reply, I get why you and many don't like subscriptions and hopefully you can why I and many (while we may not love subscriptions, are okay with them for the reasons noted previously). Thanks for sharing your the reasons that apply to you on why you do not like them and while presumably you will no longer be using apps that go subscription only. Hope you have a great weekend!

@R C-R When an app is starting out, it's less popular, and will start typically with a one time entry cost to gain users (unless the devs are very forward thinking). As apps continue to grow exponentially those original low costs may not scale well, as you could go from a few hundred users to a million users, but the your staff isn't going to grow at typically at the same rate, and now you have a massive amount of users needing support, or all wanting various "must have features", and many different use cases, etc. Where is the previous pricing structure made sense before, as it grows I believe the pay once option isn't sustainable since the majority of users will be conditioned for good or bad, to expect that software to work on all future devices or software they use, and receive new features without paying anything or not enough to make good business for the company. I wouldn't be surprised if Affinity eventually went subscription based model. Starting with iOS apps first then someday MacOS. Of course they can't do that right now because they are the underdog and while their software in many respects is better than Adobe, one reason why many would consider switching is because of their hatred of the subscription model by Adobe. But would seem the way most all will go in the long run. Just like with video and music. You can certainly buy DVDs and CDs still and will for the foreseeable future, but most have moved towards the benefits of the subscription model even though some will say they don't want to rent things, since they have their own curated libraries and feel cheated that they did what they were told for so long, and now they are told they should be doing it differently. Not sure I see what you are getting at in regards to the TOS. As noted, whether someone calls the app I use an app, application, software, or service, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Though yes, certainly understand for legal documents language is very important for to lawyers, but as a consumer, everything I noted prior is what I find relevant to me. In that no matter what you call the tool I use. Personally, I use apps (insert the term you prefer here), that run on my devices, offer the features I want at cost I find reasonable, and that I believe will be reliable. If I only plan to use a game for a little bit I don't care about sustainability and thus would only want to pay once, but for something I need to use for a long time, especially professionally, I would prefer to pay in a way that I know the chances of the product being around for as long as I need, whatever cost, or frequency that needs to be to be a good relative value. Not sure reviewing the services legal docs you recommend would be a good use of my particular time, but am glad you have had found personal value in that. As I install software/apps/etcs, and if I try to install on a new computer beyond what the terms allows, it simply lets me know I need to deactivate a previous install, which I can do. And when first sigining up was made clear on the signup process how many devices I could install on without having to spend a life reading through all the TOS. So not sure exactly where this conversation is going, but will just say again, that I completely understand most everyone (like myself) do not want to pay more than they have to (or more than they have in the past), and many have gotten use to a certain way of things, so when that changes people will take up arms potentially understandably so. But it comes down to (for me and imagine many), cost and ownership are not the primary factor, especially for professional use. I simply want to pay whatever a reasonable amount is for an app (insert your preferred term here), on whichever payment schedule is needed to assure that the app will always work with my latest devices, and have the newest reasonable features and that it will be around for as long as I need. But for people who hate subscriptions, that's great, as you can choose to only support companies that support what you need.

Yes, I consider Lightroom software / an application. How I pay for it, such as one time, once a year, once every couples of years, or once a month, or a base fee and then fees for features, I would certainly still consider it software/apps. How and when I pay for it I don't believe affects what it is called, but I do believe from my experience it relates to the sustainability and future of the product. Of course, some companies do the subscription model and nickel and dime everything with an app upgrades or high priced monthly costs that don't correlate to frequent updates. On the otherside, companies can charge once for each major upgrade, and are still around seemingly flourishing. But in general, subscription model is more sustainable as apps become more popular and hopefully competition will keep companies on their toes about providing value based subscriptions. I have a lot of strong negative feelings towards Adobe's history and applications, and can't wait until their a true all round alternative to Adobe. But Adobe could have not switched to subscriptions, and all those things I have a problem with would still exist and in my opinion would be even worse. But what we want and need from our applications varies greatly for all of us. Software typically stared as one time payments for a whole of reasons including that's what the market had an appetite for and what technology supported. Now consumers (in general of course not all) are willing to. In the long run, I believe most all software will go subscriptions, so eventually people will most likely need to embrace that (not like, but embrace), but at the same time, need to hold companies accountable to provide strong relative value. Here's for competition, and thankful companies like Affinity are here to keep Goliath like Adobe on their heals. Going to be an interesting next decade.

They've mentioned over time including previously on their site (since has been removed). The above tweet is the most recent a few months ago where they have said the DAM in the works and that they will have more info in the future. Where is now starting this months all the new tweets to the question show its no longer currently in the works. So as noted, they could always start working on it again, but certainly a shift and assume to set expectations now that is not coming soon, which I completely understand as priorities changes often.

I've switched to CC a few years back so while I remember all the uproar when they made that switch, personally I"ve always been in favor of subscription models for programs I love and rely on, since while I hate spending money, I know there is a far better chance the product will be sustainable if they have renewable income to keep working on new features and support. I've used a lot of software where it's a one time fee and then don't see updates and major improvements and ends up getting abandoned or sold. However is a company is going to charge a subscription model and high priced one, they have to make certain they are best in class and still a good relative value. The problem is Lightroom and Adobe in general never leverages all of Mac's incredible hardware and software features like apps such as Affinity or PIxelmator do. Which can make us angry, since we feel cheated that we have invested into a higher price option but not getting the best. The biggest problem with Lightroom is that it forces you to use their subpar syncing which is quite over priced. They should support iCloud and third party options for professionals such as Amazon S3 or Google Cloud. In the end I think a subscription model is the way to go, but that Adobe does add enough value and in the end it will be their demise as companies like Sketch, Affinity and others continue to take away marketshare. Still a long ways to go since hard for professionals to all switch, but it happened with Sketch, so will someday.

Since the program has been being actively developed since at least 2016 and now in 2017 October to hear it's now not in developed is certainly big news. Since if it were simply going to be another 6 months or even another year, they could simply keep saying what they have been saying like there June 2017 post where they said it's something they are working on, and just simply continued to not give a definite date. But to all of the sudden this month to start switching to saying now its not being developed is big news. It wouldn't make any sense for a company to say development has stopped and they will never ever restart development, so may in the future , just means anything is possible like with any software. I haven't heard anyone say they won't someday develop it, and as noted in several threads here today, I said one likely possibility is that them saying they are now not developing it currently could really mean that the timeline is a lot longer than they expected and rather than keep saying its coming they decided to say no, so that people won't keep thinking its right around the corner, especially now with a lot of Lightroom users wanting to jump ship. In my other posts mentioned I could see it coming in 2018, but only time will tell.

While in the past Affinity has said they are working on DAM on their website (since removed but still available on caches) as well as on Twitter, even as recently as June)... as of the past couple of weeks they have now said they are not developing a DAM. So no idea how far they got in development, but as October, it's no longer in development. If they do resume I assume it will be quite some time, since if it were just delayed a little they would simply keep saying its being developed but no ETA. To say its not being currently developed would lead one to believe it will be a much longer wait sadly. Not a fan of lightroom either since they don't embrace all the mac technology like Affinity and Pixelmator do, but at the moment look at Apple Photos, Phase1, etc there really aren't any other better options that offer an entire streamlined workflow. :-/

Unless their official twitter account has been hacked the past couple of weeks, the recent several tweets which have now started appearing noting that Affinity is no longer currently working on the previously announced DAM is official as you can get since they are coming from the Affinity official twitter account. I assume they prefer telling people officially on a per person basis on Twitter rather than announcing via blog or forum posts to lessen the blow. So while yes, it's official, for all we know they were 90% complete and they have simply decided to stop current development and could pickup again as soon as next year. It is a bit odd since even on their website they back in 2016 they announced it was coming hopefully in 2017 (since been removed but still available on older site caches). So one would think they would simply say its coming later rather than its now its no longer being developed, but once again imagine that is because people are assuming it's right around the corner based on their previous messaging and this way it can set better timeline expectations, especially if their main focus is on Publisher. So maybe 2019?

I think the "anytime soon" maybe a bit subjective. As yes completely agree, that they won't discontinue it this year or even next, but personally I believe CC to be much less important than choosing to use the word "Classic". The overall idea being less and less attention will be given to Classic and more and more to "Lightroom". Like with Apple, I think Adobe based on that naming will be pushing Lightroom hard, and then over time slowly making it more powerful. It may never be like Lightroom Classic but will imagine hopefully get close enough to reach the masses. I think they will continue to sell classic for a long time just like Apple still says the Mac Pro, it doesn't get much of any love like the iMac, but they still sell it because people still buy it. Also like how Adobe has always offered a software version of Lightroom but also introduced CC, and made it pretty clear at that time, CC was the future and the software would be the classic version. And I imagine it's only a matter of time until they completely stop selling that and just sell CC. But time will tell I guess. Trying to staying hopeful that there is light at the end of the tunnel, whether it be Photos fully supporting pro features via Affinity/Pixelmator plugins, or one of those two launching a modern built in DAM.

Sure thing below are just a few if you search on twitter for DAM and their handle. It looks like this big change has occurred roughly starting in October, since as of then now they are noting they are not currently working on a DAM program, contrary to their previous tweets as early as June where they said they were as well as their own website that use to say it but since removed though still available on way back machine. Seems like pretty massive news, but looks like Affinity is hoping to downplay it. I imagine their Publisher software or other goals have taken a priority and so they have decided to stop working on it for now, or possibly they are still working on it, but telling users they are not so people will no longer expect it anytime soon since their website had previously estimated 2017, which looks like for sure will no longer be the case. Or maybe they reached an agreement with Adobe to delay it, or Apple because of solutions those companies are working on, or countless other reasons. So while they could all of the sudden next year say here it is, based on the new tweets I wouldn't plan on holding out for it which is unfortunate but understandable.

Thanks for getting back. Latest stable version of all the software. Which is High Sierra for Mac and iOS 11 for phone. Thanks for the answer, figuring it was a yes or no. I will let the Affinity twitter team know the answer is no, so they can answer future people who might ask. I read that Apple added new functionality in the latest software this year in regards to how photos are edited in third party apps but sounds like still doesn't fully support non destructive editing other than revert to original when editing in a third party. Because of Apple's limitation looks like then Photos can't act a professional DAM solution. Had been excitedly holding out for Affinity's touted DAM after seeing it on Affinity's website and then after Affinity confirmed it on twitter including as recently as June, but with that no longer in active development according to Affinity currently, looks like Lightroom is everyone's only option for now for a full workflow solution. The full featured app is now "Classic" which means it won't be long until it's left to the wayside. And Lightroom CC is the future, but is very limiting compared to Classic, albeit much more attractive but doesn't support iCloud syncing or Google or S3 syncing. Here's for hoping Apple expands the capabilities of Photos (earliest would be next OS), or Affinity decides to restart active deveopment of it's DAM), or Adobe finds a way to full embrace all of Mac's technology and full feature set from now Classic. Someday =).

If you use Apple Photos as your DAM since Affinity has now announced on Twitter replies they are no longer currently working on their own DAM as they had been according to their previous tweets and notes on their website, want to know if non destructive raw edits are preserved. So in Apple Photos when I choose to edit a raw Photo in Affinity and save the changes back to Apple Photos, does it work like Lightroom etc, where is the original raw is still there, and I can reedit later? Meaning the changes are made to the raw and non destructive? This applies to Desktop and iPad. Asked on Twitter, but was told to ask here so assuming the answer is not yes, but rather either will be in a future update, or works partially but not fully. Can someone clarify? Thank you!