Windows and macOS are different operating Systems. Applications for one of these systems can‘t run on the other system. So you need 2 applications, one for Windows, one for macOS. And since both apps need to be coded, there are investments for both, which you have to pay. And, sincerely: The app is ridiculously cheap regarding its capabilities. If someone doesn‘t recognize this, well, the Affinity products are definitely not the right tools for this person.
@StephenBooth_uk
Sorry, but I don't agree.
IMO, @mac_heibu was making a number of very valid points based on the fact that Serif made the decision in the very early stages of the development of the whole Affinity range that each app should be able to operate on both Windows and Mac platforms but that users should be required to pay the extremely reasonable price for a licence for each operating system. Most Affinity app purchasers will require/use only one OS licence since I suspect the majority of users do NOT own/use both Windows and Mac; perhaps rather more may use the iPad versions but these are extremely competitively priced and to be able to use one app on iPad alongside either its Windows or Mac equivalent for a one-off UK price of less than £70 is a real bargain! Even the less than £100 to buy each app for both Windows and Mac stands very favourably in comparison with the subscription-only model of its famous competitor.
Jeff
That's a lot of snark for a reply to a post checking that I'd understood the situation correctly.
I'm aware that MacOS and Windows are different operating systems and so you need different compiles of the application, 30+ years in the IT/Computing industry, and still going, kinda makes that clear. The norm, however, for cross-platform application development for about 25 years now has been to use abstraction libraries so the same code is compiled for each platform, just using different libraries to abstract the application from the OS services, the developer only needs to think about the application they are writing, not the differences in the OSes they might run on. If your suppliers are telling you they need to code separately for each platform and aren't writing drivers or embedded code (and actually a lot of driver writers are using abstraction libraries these days) then they are ripping you off or need to give their development team a Vegas funeral.
This is the first time I can recall an application where you needed a different license depending on which desktop platform you were running it on for quite some time. It's kinda inherent in the language of software licenses, you're buying a license to run the code, not the code itself. This is why in most cases you can install the same application on more than one machine (same or different OS) and so long as you only run it on one machine at a time you're fine with a single user license.
The price point for Affinity is not that dissimilar to other packages with similar functionality from what I've seen, it's the same as I'd pay to upgrade PSP and about £25 less than the new cost of PSP. I think what you really mean is that 'Affinity isn't a rip off price like PhotoShop can afford to be due to its name recognition." The issue for me (and possibly the OP) is that wanting to run on both Windows and Mac is about convenience. Do I want to double my cost, and learn a new application, to avoid having to carry two laptops once in a while when I need to carry the Mac for some other reason, or do I only pay about the same and stick with the application I know but 4-5 times a year I'll have to carry my Windows laptop and my MacBook or put down my MacBook and go into the other room to get my Windows laptop.
