SrPx

Well.. that runs way deeper than our practical case here (and our current problem as artists/designers/photographers), but I'd say I'm not sure about Neumann having enough data to predict that, so long ago, and more importantly: I have had that conversation often with quite a few individuals; it ends up always in having to agree to disagree. Mostly because I am convinced that we can't replicate intelligence to our brain's level in certain very key matters, even if we can make it quite more capable in several areas (as fascinating as the future arrival of "AGI" appears to be for some, if that ends up happening). But mostly, because I value what is human (art is part of it) a lot more than any chunk of silicon or any piece of metal with some circuits on it, so, I wouldn't give the thing more rights than to a human, even if it got super intelligent (talking here about IP, copyrights). And overall, no matter how smart we can make it, it would not have the human's main characteristics. In any case, I'll retire way before AGI is even close. IMO what AI (which, btw, people in that field hate that it has been called "AI" by marketing folks, as it is not yet such, it's quite far) can do has been slightly over hyped, for VC's interests. Currently it does not boil down to that. At least not in its current state. It does not know what I know to make a proportionate human (hence the many errors, and it's only fixed (the 9 fingers, etc, etc, etc) with certain "tricks", not true understanding. It's just dealing with patterns), neither how all the 20 muscles of the forearm behave and change in every pose (neither do I, but yep till a sufficient extent). And neither is capable of many other skills achieved by an artist, those are not yet things that an "AI" is _really_ able to replicate, even less, consciously (but it can mashup stuff, use patterns, predict words in a context, etc), right now. Maybe in the future? Yes, probably. But that future is farther than people think. But the result, the output, is already something that can be sold/used to fully replace artists (the general public doesn't notice/even care, with said output). VC investors behind all those companies were not after giving artists tools to improve their work, give the artists more functionality to their workflows (even while a lot of devs will use AI for that, as there's a market for it, too, but much, much smaller). The main purpose was/is the replacement, otherwise these VCs would have not invested so much money in making full generative AI for images. Huge profit is at the core of all this, and only that. Replacing all labor of a field (not caring about the damage, not just to the artists, but to society, in the long run) means a lot of money gain, multiplying profit by a much larger factor than a more typical investment.

A, still not fair, yet "not so bad" solution would be to make it a requirement by law to state very prominently (and this certainly can be regulated, and it's not costly -at all- to do by the "prompters". I have indeed seen some doing it for moral reasons) that the art was created using generative AI, instead of being the work of an artist. Still, it would remain the fact that such generation came from a non allowed use (whether to extract the style or blatantly copy parts of art pieces) of a lot of illustrated content for the creation of a tool (which is illegal in any other field), and then that print. This in the music industry is very well regulated. And at least for commercial usage, it is not that easy to bypass. But the idea is not a digital protection, but enforcing the measure by law. As then, the average Jane and Joe will still be doing it not complying to the law (BTW, I have no complaints about the use in memes and non commercial use, in general), but like with piracy, unlawful use is not that practical for true commercial purposes. This is not my idea, it has been mentioned multiple times. I think it is never comparable what is happening with AI to an art student learning. Besides that an AI is not a human, the AI is not learning what it takes to make a good art piece. It does not have a clue about what anatomy is, or at least does not really understand it, neither composition, color theory, art history, its own human context, etc. It has some parameters for making a sophisticated mashup, a prediction based system using enormous sets of artwork. And ultimately, it is a product developed using creative work (impossible without it) from artists, in a way not allowed legally by their authors. I personally would have less of an issue if, by law, by regulation (otherwise people just don't comply) whether from EU legislation then copied by the US and the rest of the world, or the other way around, or if becoming a global thing in any other way, it was imposed to specify very clearly (in the credits and signature of the print, digital image, etc) that it is the result of generative AI. Then markets could be differentiated, many users would still prefer the cheap AI images, of course, but would be two categories. While currently, posters, prints, etc, are sold without any note about it (although the amount of errors is glaring, but not for everyone). The ethics of it, still not great, but at least it damages less the creators who made it, and contributes less to destroy an entire cultural field (which has built our history and it is more important to humanity than it is perceived to be), as it is doing already. The motivation for those not willing to take this simple measure would be quite telling, in my opinion. But this is not in the hands of any developer or company (they could have the initiative to force a small watermark, tho, some are doing it. But the only definitive solution is regulation). I mention it as we are apparently discussing philosophic or ethical aspects of it.

Maybe.. But I suspect that most people that dislike 2.x might be due to a first impression: they found the situation (too many bugs, initially) at the moment of launch, and left, just switched to other platform. Some others lasted a bit more trying with 2.x, by digging for workarounds by themselves and in the forum. And some (if this thread could serve as a sample, then at least a nice percentage) of us went quite farther and kept seeing huge improvements every next release they made in 2.x, fine tuning tons of things. I have more stability now in 2.4 than I ever had in 1.x (even the best version of 1.x), and the functionality I can make use of is quite more complete in 2.4, plus getting better performance. I don't know the stats, though (of how many of those 3 million users are using 2.x or 1.x). There's also another important issue: for a long time I had projects fully made in 1.x. I did not want to risk (even if there were no risks) a back and forth between 1.x and 2.x. But finished those projects, now I only work with the latter.

It probably does not have enough data for it. Any average artist is "smarter" than these systems (so I think the term "learn" is somewhat incorrect. They don't know of anatomy like I do (or at all, better said), or any other artist who dedicated at least a decade or so to the matter). But them having gazillions of data to 'mashup' gives them the edge in many commercial markets, which yep, destroys many artists' way of living, ends up with a bunch of artists having to quit. That while... you telling an artist to dig info about the 1813 locomotive Puffing Billy, or whatever, this person will research about the matter and do a collection of art concepts about it before even starting the project. Will also consider many more nuances (and making more sense at it) than any AI. That advantage is not enough, though. The concerns of clients and companies (for not using AI) in some cases are related to privacy issues, industrial secret, etc. As things can get leaked not just with text, also images. And I suppose some level of uncertainty/lack of control introduced by AI is a problem, too. I have zero problems with AI being used for content aware or speeding up some tedious process, when it is not substituting fully the creative job (BTW, with AI, I have seen in many articles and people's comments in lots of social platforms a considerable confusion about the art concept... a prompt is not "art", no matter how elaborated the prompt). The Procreate app has taken a very different stance (probably unique in the industry... huge kudos to them), opposing to AI, to defend the ones who helped them bring the app where it is now (the artists). Design.. yep, it can be also challenged (the jobs matter). Less so than with artists, by far. But it is already capable of quite in several apps, and perhaps it's a matter of time. But a designer is a lot more of a "puzzle maker", and we (I am also a designer and 3D artist, though illustration is my passion) have always been able to use such tools to focus on function (more so since the Bahaus ), composition, etc, always thinking on the end user. Programmers are less affected, and anyway, they have many more ways to integrate with the whole AI train. One of the major problems is that.. Although it (the visual art world) has not (yet) seen applied as severe methods as happened in the music industry in the past (to protect the musicians IP), when you use content to build a tool (AI apps, the totally essential scrapping of content), and you don't ask for permission, do not sign any contract... you are using content in an unfair way. Whether regulation will be able to fine tune several matters to bring things to its most fair state, it is hard to guess. Also, there's a lot of money to be gained, and that makes it more difficult, as a lot of powers that be will oppose, money move mountains, way more than ethics.

The first video was very interesting; solid points. The second video... It's something I can't really define, but there was "something" -very subtle- on the thumbnail that did not make me wish to watch it I don't know of any method (like I do in other forums). But I can think of hitting there at the bottom once you paste the youtube link on the post, where it says something like "this was pasted as rich text, click here to use it as plain text", as what it does is just showing the mere youtube (clickable) links, filling up no space. If you would want it more sophisticated, maybe making a screenshot of the thumbnail, saving to the size you prefer (ie, a 200px width image), inserting the images into the post, then making those images links (with the chain icon (besides the quotes one) after selecting each image) using each Youtube video URL.

I wish it was shrinking... that would mean we've reached that ideal moment when I don't need to care anymore about color accuracy... even more, that all got so universally perfect that I need not to worry either about CMYK (yes, I know RIP are today very good in the conversion from RGB (but if the different RGB sources are too different for lack of calibration and etc...), but it's not enough in too many cases), color aberrations, levels of ink, etc. But each device/monitor/etc supporting a color profile or color space, like sRGB, Adobe RGB or Display P3 does not mean they display those colors accurately. Too often they introduce important deviations, etc, often not noticed (due to visual compensation, our perception...) until the work ends up on certain consumers screens. Even Mac screens do need calibration for serious work. Not only for print (and I have suffered the consequences when someone "skipped" some step in the chain, usually not the folks at the print company, and because... "hey, it's 2024, it's not needed anymore". Ouch, those cases ended with expensive print runs ruined) , but also for screen. I have some anecdotes with concept art for the press, for big sites that would publish an article or review about the game(/s), for which color accuracy was critical, despite being screen-only outputs. I would agree that social media centered work IF color accuracy is not so important, can live without that (except the moment when some color mistake is too big even for the average consumer, and somehow escapes the radar of capable people at the company). I wouldn't say it is shrinking. I'd say the vast amount of stuff dumped on social media today gives such sensation, but it's just how massive is that output. But any professional (not hobbyist) photographer I know, and even more, photo labs for bigger publications, do their hardware color calibration once per week, two weeks or monthly at the very least, depending on how critical is accuracy in their work, to counter inaccuracy due to monitors' degradation/change. And there are not fewer professionals now (more, if anything). This happens also in graphic design for anything beyond solely social media. Admittedly, for corporate image stuff (branding at certain levels, etc) you end up needing to use Pantones and other methods (which also involve calibration of all the chain), but if anything that's another proof for the need of accuracy. I have needed (as in, required) this accuracy with even the digital-only book cover illustrations and graphic design for ebooks. So... I think it's as needed as always, if not more. The difference is, IMO, that there is a huge chunk of work to be done which does not need it badly, for which the speed of output is more important. I recon though that tablets (at least Samsung, iPad Pro and the latest Surface Pro versions, indeed, at least this last one gets a desktop OS on it) can be considered now a "professional" companion; they make part of the professional workflow, or serve to review it, etc, but desktop keeps being the main thing for too many workflows.

Detailed work is harder with smaller screens (I've had an iPad and currently a S7 Samsung Galaxy tablet (great for painting), but both pale in comparison to working with my calibrated Eizo monitor). Color calibration by hardware, file system, real professional software ecosystem (beyond Affinity and the great Procreate), or even the real state for drawing on a tablet/board with which you can draw from the elbow or shoulder, great for confident line work. I don't deny the convenience of accessing your project files in any device at any moment, if that's a need, and how some workflows do benefit from it. But for a lot of projects, the desktop is an absolute need (I wouldn't consider a professional activity inferior than another, though).

- Edited as I was breaking the rule of no quoting, (that it is recommended not quoting, if I got it right), I just realized it- - Edit 2: Oh, it was "in disagreement" quoting. It was not in this case. But I just removed the quoting, anyway. About what is the trend of the thread, I don't think there is one. "Some" of us reached a certain conclusion (in any case... nobody knows, though!). Although, have to say, it all (the conversation as a whole) sounds to me a bit ridiculous, though... here, in a forum with some hundreds posts in this thread, by very few individuals in the grand scheme of things (for whether positive or negative views on the whole matter), not representative (reliably, in any way) of 3 million users, neither written by any market expert (at least, that we know), and without any first hand solid info about the matter, other than from Affinity team members, which statements I happen to be guilty of trusting (as I trust the individuals). That conclusion is due to certain data, and was/is the opposite to an Adobe->Canva buyout; at least, from recent, new (for us) data. And that the most likely scenario, due to Australian regulation, and some other factors -detailed in several recent posts from a few members- is, besides not really looking probable such acquisition, it is indeed quite possible that Canva just wants to compete (even more) in certain areas and niches, grab more market from Adobe (and I believe Adobe might start -already is, surely, we know of some apps (Adobe Express, maybe?) doing this already- producing and releasing products to counter that. In any case, I still see an enormous difference between the two, in size and even in market. But there's some overlap for the less experienced users, hobbyists, small business, marketing specialists, and everything that matches that skill level in graphic work, in my opinion. Not expecting the Canva buyout from Adobe is mostly due to what has been mentioned about Australian regulation (but you never know). About the trend of the thread, there is probably none, IMO. There are almost as many theories as people, here . We can read and write until humanity creates a functional base on Mars, but, besides that's not going to move or change "the big events", only time and reality (proof and facts, in whatever direction; and I don't see only two) will convince people of one thing or the other, IMO. Meanwhile, I kind of like the idea of keep making my graphics in Affinity (and my other gazillion graphic tools , as I never saw it as an exclusive thing, and so, zero problems).

Yes, at the current level of Adobe's developments (and considering their cloud covers many more areas, as you say, so is never apples to apples) that is unthinkable, as Adobe is not "stopped". Unlike a lot of people say (angry with Adobe), Photoshop and the other apps do progress a lot, and the company last time I checked had 26.000 (surely more, now) souls working worldwide (versus the 90 people in Affinity, yet they have made a functional suite to do a lot of what three of the main Adobe apps do). Then also, even if Canva made of Affinity a "cloud" suite to compete at that level, investing giga loads of cash to become as capable, just for the existence of a similar alternative (but again! that's only in capabilities.. we must not forget implantation in companies, that's huge to fight against), then this sole possible choice would decrease the price of both, almost guaranteed. That's true competition. But that would need such a titanic use of resources, while if instead, keeping Affinity how it is (even if not making a faster pace! just allowing its survival), slowly gaining terrain to Adobe in certain parcels, does seem a lot smarter, requiring a lot lower investment, yet actively grabbing more market.

The cloud is important, yes. But IMO, for a user/market niche. For Canva's main current user profile (I think the whole point of the Affinity apps line added is to add a new niche, with many sub niches itself), it makes a lot of sense. They have all the gazillion of Canva's assets in the cloud, and light (very light) apps to do very basic things (what those users can really do), those can be all web apps, on a browser. For a bit higher end, you are handling heavy files for print with many layers, specially if it's raster work (like complex illustrations that happen not to be vector based, or not fully). Even overly complex (many nodes and objects) vector files could mean a problem (processing, etc). Even just in photography, editing large RAW files is a too heavy duty for both being a browser app (although being cloud based does not imply the need of a browser based app, I know) or access to disk through a whichever connection (weaker part being mostly in the client side), and then whatever is the state of the disc access in the cloud machines, or just CPU/GPU performance required, not so great in browser apps. So, the cloud's need and usefulness I guess it depends on the market niche.

'95 here, too. At an agency which used Mac Classic II and Quadra (for the "advanced stuff"). Adobe PS 2.0, and 2.5 (for course, before CS. I did not use PS 1.0, though), I believe. A legion of green and orange monitors (Amstrad, I think) for the admin people, and a large IBM AS/400 server to serve them all, and in the darkness, bind them. Shocking for me to remember that I started professionally with macs...!

Yes, I know how it has always been said that people with a very specific profile (Serif counted on a bunch of very high profile from previous developments to Affinity) are hard to find. And I believe it to be true. But! Loads of cash go a very long way to find them even under a rock. That and contacts, professional networks that the new almost-giant has. About the time... we have had recent events (avoiding specifics to not open that can of worms) in the world which demonstrated that while it was believed that "certain thing" could be only be developed in 10 to 20 years, with enough money and common effort thrown at it, not only one, but a bunch of several "brands" solutions were "up and running" in just one year (not talking about AI... this time ) . I believe in the power of money . Realistic enough? (doesn't mean that I like materialism, quite the opposite. But it is what it is)

I'm embarrassed to admit that I was not confusing historical figures (which I didn't even know about, ouch, )... it's waay less sophisticated. In Spanish it's written "Sídney", so, that's why 😅 .

You got my heartfelt 'like' for the AI comment (would have gotten the purple one if I weren't slightly disagreeing in other points). The 2.0 was a bump in the road, yep... But I reacted by helping with user workarounds (like there was no tomorrow, lol), as many other did (Walt, Alfred, etc, etc) while the devs progressively went fixing everything. Any software is at that state in the "machines room" while doing it... and if released too soon, that is what you see. Having worked at regular software companies and game studios quite intensively, I knew I was just looking at it "from inside", not something going particularly wrong, but maybe (I could be wrong) released too soon. Just that. You wouldn't imagine how some games are plagued with bugs while development. Or even office related software. But with experience being a beta tester for many apps, I did not mind it, found the workflows and tricks for my own usage and shared all what I could here, researched issues of others, specially for those who found A or B a show stopper for their needs. Helped as much as I could. But I can understand the pain. To me, even with the bumps in the road, and this "surprise", these apps are way, way worth it, compared to what it's out there, and also the style of doing things of this team (team which, for all I understood, is gonna be kept to continue the development). It is an unique combination (even rare), and it is very much worth it preserving it. And I foresee it will stay so, and better (more resources, by far). About... progress... I guess varies from field to field... 2.x , I don't know the technicalities or reasons why, but the brush engine is more fluid, in Affinity Photo. 1.x very latest and perfected/patched version is almost as fluid, and super functional, but, in my machine (and it could be a single case, yet I doubt it, for how I configure things... it's also this way in my laptop) the brush flows more fluid, better response in every 2.x version compared to the best 1.x. I'm talking painting fluidly with large brushes, large canvases (which is taxing in ANY app, I've done deep research), Adobe RGB color space files, working with 16bits/channel, and using brushes that mimic traditional media. This was not so in the past versions of 1.x (again, a lot was improved in the latest 1.x). In the old past there was even brush lag. Also, many UI improvements related to brushes library and settings, a gazillion bugs fixed in all the apps, in the following 2.x versions (2.4 runs really smooth here). I do more than painting, and I have not found a "show stopper" in my workflows, but like with any software and brand, I'm sure there always are. Adobe being on its own (speaking now about the "going back to Adobe" that you mention) is a HUGE price to pay and a situation we (imo) must not admit (except those willing to work as part of staffs, learning and heading for a specific job profile, or only having freelance market clients that require Adobe apps pipelines, formats, integration. Adobe is the industry (many industries) leader). Meaning, if Adobe is again "left alone", to eat "all the pie", that's really bad news (renting prices augmenting, random decisions way easier for them, no need to offer better deals or competing apps for certain niches, etc, etc). We need competition (it's actually great for Adobe users), even with these "bumps". I'm fluent with open source apps, and for low-mid range that should be enough, but a lot of people keeps finding difficult certain UIs . In reality, a lot of that is the bad image from the past, more than recent versions' reality, but difficult to fight against that concept. So, Affinity is a need, with Canva or with whatever behind it. Plus, I believe people are seeing things way to much one-sided. It's not like I don't see the bad sides, but to me, only AI is the real bad one, but artists are alone in this (people are getting nervous with AI in other profiles, like coders, but imo they shouldn't... yet) and it's an unavoidable tech (although there's over hype, too, for increasing VC funding), which as you say, can only be kept under control by regulation (I'm hopeful that it will). But the other reasons, which most people are worried about (subscriptions, continued development, etc), I am seeing more and more that these should be less of a concern, some aspects are not given the same weight as the negative possibilities, is what I am finding. BTW, not trying to demonize Adobe. I love its apps. Photoshop for me is more natural than my tooth brush, but a monopolistic situation has been detrimental for all of us (including Adobe users), IMO, as tends to be with consumers, we need competition. This is not the easy path, the easy one is Adobe, one must have it clear (you can't have it all...). But I am not that convinced that (for a freelancer/independent business, again, not for a career in the industry) sticking with the "giant" is necessarily the safest route... as indeed, I have friends that saw how sticking with Adobe "no matter what", ended having to close an entire small business line with Muse (specially as many of those chose that business line because they can't do web code, any programming at all, but their service was making websites with Muse) , Fireworks, Freehand, etc, all similar stories. Microsoft has done that a lot, too (acquired many software studios). These people (The A-team ) have a different style and different model than Adobe or MS. Not only Affinity team (I'm not saying "Serif", you know what I mean), as IMO, while with a very different motto, it is also in Canva's main interest to push up Affinity apps, not the opposite, from what we are seeing that seems to be the big market motivations. I can easily see that they want to grab a bigger chunk of Adobe's market, but "just that". I think they are smart enough to know that in higher tiers Adobe will keep undisputed (but the casuals (and now aiming for a middle ground too, with Affinity) are a huge market... mainstream always is very big). Even that very sole reason is reassuring, which, BTW, is very materialistic itself (for the realism lovers ), just markets stuff, and quite an argument to realize that the outcome of a more powerful Affinity suite is more than probable, beyond of course being ensured its permanence.

Thank you very much for all the accurate information. It is indeed quite a positive aspect of the whole thing. As you say, at least one concern less to have. ( and I deeply apologize for the mistake with "Sydney"... I just edited it... In that case I can't put the blame on my broken English )

Thank you (Alfred)

I'm curious... One of our Australian forum members, MikeV, discards this possibility, due to Canva's HQ happening to be in Sydney, Australia, and how Australian regulators are tending to deal with this sort of thing there : " Adobe takeover One of the concerns raised in this thread is the potential for Adobe to buy Canva – given the mood and direction of Australian competition regulators I think this is so unlikely that it does not figure in my calculations. " After what has happened with Figma (Adobe tried to acquire it recently), apparently this is not such an automatic thing to expect, these days. There are some articles about it : https://www.afr.com/technology/no-one-can-buy-canva-now-other-start-ups-beware-20231220-p5esr8 Edit: Ouch, sorry. It seems that article is partially behind a paywall... I could read it completely, but it seems for some reason it only shows up full when searching some stuff in Google, not accessing it directly... (I am not familiar with that site, BTW). But one of the key points of it is that Australian companies have it pretty hard to do such operation now, due to regulation (what MikeV described). What I am finding more in Google goes more in the lines of several sources expecting more of a competition from Canva against Adobe, grabbing more market from Adobe in the low, to low-mid end. Obviously Adobe will keep non challenged in the very high end, not just as its apps are immensely more advanced and professional, but -almost more important- because many industries (not only the game and film industries) have their pipelines, workflows, custom solutions, trained teams, tightly tied to Adobe. But a huge pie of the market is the low end (175 millions of users in Canva is no small thing) and part of a bit higher tier. Even more the case when our skills are less and less needed (and I can't understand why people don't realize that this is the biggest danger for artists, designers, photographers, etc, but not just from Canva, but any apps with full AI art and design generation, like MidJourney , Dall-E, etc), so, the low end users can finally do a lot of work without our services (in Canva, and similar solutions), and then, the "pie" that canva can grab is significantly bigger than what it was the potential Canva's user base before. WAY more the case if they start implementing Affinity's tech inside Canva solutions (to an extent... I don't see a lot of their user base getting super technical! It's not that profile), and also keeping the branch of Affinity's standalone suite. As in, I think it aspires to way more than the social media graphics and fast stuff for marketing people and small business owners saving bucks on designers and artists that it was its market till now. This challenges a large chunk of Adobe's user base. And from what I am digging out there, it seems I was not the only one suspecting that Canva's thing is not to be bought, but to compete with the giant, as at this point, well, it's a giant itself and it has a lot to win. I am not saying this to challenge your opinion. I am genuinely curious about all this matter, and I might be wrong, as I'm just barely reading about these things now, pretty ignorant in finances stuff, and English is not my first language, but seems to be there quite a bunch of articles supporting this theory and right now I am not finding anything suggesting the possibility of an Adobe--> Canva buyout. But who knows.

Philosophical theories apart, there's clearly a good chance for the future of Affinity and its users of being bright, more than before, now with a strong company behind it. And from what MikeV told us, it seems to be a better actor than those that tend to make these big operations, and also from what he explained, the possibility of an Adobe buyout is unlikely due to Australian regulation (as was said in the initial video, Canva is an Australian company, HQ in Sydney, if I'm not wrong). Yet so, it doesn't harm to be training in other tools as well (I might have like 40 tools graphics related installed, lol), it will expand everyone's knowledge, and for some, it would probably cure their anxiety. I understand that those not being solo freelancers (hello), neither hobbyists, but having the responsibility of a full organization (even if it is only a few workers) have quite less margin, more compromises and responsibilities, and so, more reasons to be anxious. But till some extent they might be able to apply a bit of this, hopefully. Anyway, I've got a good feeling about the whole thing.

I got it in that sense (even with the difficulties of a Spaniard always "thinking in Spanish"), and even so, in my experience, things often work better hoping for the best, in practically every matter. In my opinion, it's so much better for "building" stuff (and in personal relations, and etc). This does not mean being naive, or not taking certain measures (like, also counting on other tools, a flexible plan in that sort of thing also helps in learning much better the general concepts (2D, 3D, design... ), IMO). But even so, making your mind too much towards a negative outcome, affects one's perception, and finally, one's actions. But ok, this is more philosophical than anything... a bit off topic.

I very much understand what you mean, and it's true for many situations... but... (and this is personal for each individual) if I focus on the latter, it becomes very difficult to keep doing the former.

Well... I already said I was optimist about this (a bit after being shocked at a first moment, just by giving it a second read and a second video watch), many, many pages ago. There are like 15 pages or more that I have not been able to read (yet.. And I thought I was THE compulsive writer, here, all these years ). But after the latest post from Ash (7 hours ago) in this thread, I have no doubts. Zero. This is really a very good thing for Affinity and its users. I had my doubts due to the initial wording, before the pledge (but a lot of that can be due to my language barrier! ) of the initial announcement, but now it has been very clearly explained. And it being other way... it wouldn't really make sense in relation to a bunch of aspects. He's being sincere and now I don't have a single doubt that 3.x and beyond will be offered as perpetual licenses (while at the same time being there a subscription option, just like I mentioned it happens, and successfully, with years to prove it, with Celsys' Clip Studio and Corel's suite) for whoever prefer the subscription flavor, which I guess there won't be many around here, for the nature and origin of this community, me included. But a portion will, from what I have read from people in threads during the years (even if that's a minority). Not only that, I also believe it is also true that they will be able to develop with quite less pressure, this resulting in good quality code, and therefor, user experience. Bright future to come. These three apps have allowed me to get very functional workflows and high quality work, in several fields. And for those still thinking about fleeing... the grass not only ain't greener out there, as, being the "compulsive software collector" that I am, I always keep an eye... "out there" it looks pretty bad, lol (with the exception of FOSS, open source software, which I have always loved, deeply). I'm eager to check the new improvements to come in 2.x. Eager but not in a hurry! I absolutely love 2.4, which allows me not only to do anything DTP, game and illustration related, but also at this point it is a remarkable pleasure to digital paint with Affinity Photo, the brush engine and system performing great, with the overall functionality and flexibility in image editing that I had years ago in Photoshop, but with an UI and UX that I prefer, despite having used PS for decades and knowing it upside down. And Designer is a joy for anything vectors related, for any flavor of graphic design. I use Publisher less just because I get fewer gigs (and I'm way less experienced in publishing tasks), that's just due to my circumstances; but I love that app, too. I hope many of you will stay. I think it's very much worth it.

Old thread, but in case you still have the problem. Do you have Open CL hardware acceleration selected.... It makes a great difference having it disabled. Even with a 3060, if I leave it on, it will lag. Also, it works better for me to NOT use 'Windows Ink' setting in preferences/tools, but instead, "high precision", and also disable in your Wacom (or other brand) panel (outside Affinity, on Windows) , in the profile you created there for Affinity (whichever the app, this works the same for the 3) , specifically in the "proyection" tab (in Wacom's), where it might be checked "Windows Ink". The brush typically goes more fluid for me by doing so, and more importantly, the software is more stable and with no glitches, once I disable that. YMMV, as this issue that's not happen in every system, but it's a good measure to try. The Open CL acceleration is IMO better turned off in most cases. Fast note: I was able to get fluid painting with just a dirty cheap nvidia 1650. the key is that AMD GPUs don't play well with Affinity, and is not Affinity's fault, but bugs on the AMD's drivers, as has been discovered. My advice is to use though a 3060. They are kind of cheap now, and in my 3900X (becoming old, now.. single CPU scores are much higher with just a Ryzen 5600) with a nvidia 3060 provides me with absolutely fluid painting, even with large and complex (oil, etc) brushes in Affinity Photo. Some settings in the brush can slow it down (this is not unique of Affinity, but very noticeable) a lot. Like... careful with the"spacing" value. The bigger the value, the faster. But careful not to be it so much that you start seeing the dotted line or patter repeating strokes. Certain dynamics in the brush tab for that might affect, too. Playing with that is how you can achieve ultra fast brush painting, provided you first took care of what I mentioned above. I paint with no lag in Adobe RGB color space (wider gamut), 16bits/channel (as gives better gradients, better transitions, but it is taxing for a mid range machine like a Surface Pro really is -compromise for being portable and everything-). Many apps are using GPU these days for the brush. So many... Photoshop, since a while, is almost useless without a 2GB VRAM video card and with certain benchmark, below that you are painting with lag. PaintTool Sai (extreme performance with large canvases and large brushes, best in that) and ClipStudio use the CPU for almost everything. That's the difference you notice, as the Surface Pro doesn't have a real GPU. Corel Painter and PaintStorm Studio use very heavily the GPU. Corel Painter even makes you run a benchmark just first time you run the program, to let you know if you are going to able to paint or not, depending on your hardware... But I think you can try all that and get fluid painting in The 2.x Affinity apps.

I have no issues with "AI" features (content aware stuff, filters, etc). Only with full illustration generation from scrapping art all over internet (without permission to use it to build the tools). Not really excited about such features, anyway, as it's usually a loss of control while a lot of that is better made with good techniques, and these AI features also so often make people skip achieving the best skills, but that's just an opinion.

My latest messages of yesterday had a drastic turn (not that I saw it so negatively as a few did, at least not so much, but I initially thought that it was not looking good), before these statements and important clarifications being published. This confirms that bit of light I saw yesterday, finally. That after a first negative impression, I started realizing that this is not what we have seen happening to other companies (as many as I have seen fall). Meaning, I quite started seeing that the communication was made in good faith (at least the part that comes from Affinity team), and that the good plans for the future are honest and real (call it intuition, but I think he was sincere). Yes, this needs a leap of faith, or call it "trust", if you prefer, but I am convinced that they have gained this trust, with all what they have accomplished to this point (with whatever the bumps in the road, as they were always a small company). One way or the other, they have provided us with a fabulous suite, and I have personally been able to do professional work with it for years, like many of you have, too. And others have been able to practice their loved hobby, with very powerful, easy to handle, flexible tools and an amazing UI. BTW, Canva has mostly its market in very casual users, much more than Affinity's (professionals and advanced hobbyists), in the large numbers. We're talking about two quite differentiated user targets, different markets. One of the reasons (but not the main one) why I think it does not make sense for any company to stop the Affinity line. I bet the user base (future consumers of next perpetual license upgrades!) is pretty large at this moment. And its name is strong in many reviews, publications, tutorials, courses, etc. And knowing how this mass of people got here fleeing from the subscriptions, it only makes sense that also perpetual license (as an option) is here to stay. Corel and Celsys (Clip Studio developer) understood that, and they kept both the product line and the type of license (as an option). The "optional" thing is pretty smart. Why lose those sells? As the number of people disliking subscriptions is pretty large. Companies can have both. I am convinced Affinity is not going anywhere, as in, not stopping being updated, neither becoming "subscription-only". As I mentioned yesterday, this is what Clipstudio made, and like a week ago or so I updated to 3.0. Despite everyone and their dog saying it'd become full subscription, back in the day, with CSP 2.0 release, when things changed there, too. And as I also mentioned, this also has kept happening with Substance 3D Painter (even now being Adobe's) on Steam. Corel does this since a very long time, although their perpetual license of the Corel Draw suite is many times more expensive than Affinty's suite (and I would argue that Photo-Paint (or even PSP) is way below in the feature set (and UI) compared to Affinity Photo). But they have kept that for many years, now. And this team (Affinity team) and company has proved to be ethical, in many of their actions (during the covid, with constant help for designers and artists, etc). So, I believe all people liking the Affinity tools should stick around, this is here to stay, and improve (a lot). I firmly believe it. [ I for one keep having the huge issue with Canva having a generative AI tool (full illustration generation from scrapped artwork. I'd be totally fine with just AI features), among other more standard functionalities and the heaps of stock art (that's fine, IMO... artists were paid to provide with those! ), it has the equivalent to a "Midjourney" or "Dall-e" inside of it: The only ONE reason why I might leave here (yet to decide it, though). If so, was good to know all of you, people. My one remaining issue is that aspect of Canva (but "it is what it is", that can't change), due to principles, as an artist, not with the Affinity team. Neither with their plans about Affinity; I think they are being sincere ]. I hope people stay, or a big portion at least, and you all keep doing work with these great tools and helping (I promoted Affinity for years, everywhere , and helped here all I could with the 2.0 bumps in the road) a true professionals and advanced hobbyists alternative to "the cloud". There are times when personal commitment is more important than a cold contract, in my opinion. That and all what they have provided with for many years. My 2c.

@nezumi Very solid points (even more than the previous). It's super late here and my energy is depleted 😁, so, pardon for being somewhat brief. Yep! from Spain! . Traditional painter (where it all started) and with so many other suits.... (but it comes also due to being on earth a bit more than half a century, heh...and having way too much curiosity) Yep, I saw many folks (some friends, even) already switching careers (some that ONLY have painted, their entire existence, they can't code to save their lives, so, I neither see the point...). I switch constantly, almost with every gig, since always. But not going to stop digital painting, ever, and even less the case with traditional painting and drawing. It's about passion. To stay a bit more on topic (sorry, it's my bad): Here's me hoping (and even believing) that it all go well, and we'll keep having Affinity with a perpetual license model (as an option; for sure there will be also a subscription model...it's Canva) for a very long time. I might be a dumb optimist (I am, in general), but, despite the first impression, I now suspect things will go that way. The user base is too large, now, and too tied to the perpetual license concept, and they'd move on (to open source or other apps), otherwise. Even if nothing has been firmly assured for 3.x versions and beyond. Really, the part which I most dislike is the collaboration with a software and company which main thing in the late months has been its illustration AI "generation" tool (while I agree with you that the current "AI" -whatever the brand- is pretty dumb). I might move to doing art with other tools, but for that reason (matter of principles), not for the other reasons mentioned in this thread. For most Affinity users, though, I think all will keep the same, even better, as I do believe that the Affinity apps are going to improve faster, now. Reading more between the lines, and noticing some extra details do make me think like this, now. But we'll see! [ And more important than anything, I really hope your kid is doing well, now. In any case, I believe we all should go to therapy at some point, even being perfectly fine. I've yet to go once (my generation is like you described yours, yep...). ]