Medical Officer Bones

@Karmamole
Welcome to the Serif Affinity forums  
Because that is what we (Serif) decided to do. The Prodigal Son parable may be relevant here. A single price for launch for all users, other than those who bought in the 2-3 months before launch who received email with links with further discounts, including some who got free upgrades for very recent purchases.
Sorry you think that your 6 years of use was not good enough value, but you can continue to use it at no extra cost.
To ALL others here, PLEASE do not argue with these users whose views on our pricing are valid whether you agree with them or not. It is NOT for you to justify our marketing decisions, and is leading to arguments over and over which do not make anyone feel any different. Please stop engaging on Serif's behalf it is NOT what we want. Let them express their opinions, thanks. Just Stop, feedback is for Serif not for you

Krita, Blender, Gimp, OpenToonz, Visual Studio Code, Inkscape, Godot, Scribus, LibreOffice, VLC Player, Linux...
All offer more now than a few years ago and did not increase their pricing!
🙂 I see a pattern.

Krita, Blender, Gimp, OpenToonz, Visual Studio Code, Inkscape, Godot, Scribus, LibreOffice, VLC Player, Linux...
All offer more now than a few years ago and did not increase their pricing!
🙂 I see a pattern.

It's just missing an option to turn off the preview. If the developers add that option users can choose to either use it or not, depending on the job.

It's just missing an option to turn off the preview. If the developers add that option users can choose to either use it or not, depending on the job.

It's just missing an option to turn off the preview. If the developers add that option users can choose to either use it or not, depending on the job.

It's just missing an option to turn off the preview. If the developers add that option users can choose to either use it or not, depending on the job.

It's just missing an option to turn off the preview. If the developers add that option users can choose to either use it or not, depending on the job.

Untrue. It brings something to the table for web image usage that neither PNG nor JPG supports: a lossy image format with full transparency support. It was sorely needed.

InkScape features a quite decent bitmap autotracer, and is free.

Oh, come now. Let's be realistic, and compare Publisher's development progress with InDesign:
InDesign 1: Everything new! (1991) <--> Publisher R1: Everything New! (2019)
Both were products developed from scratch by companies with a deep understanding and experience developing design software.
Either first release lacked footnotes or book support. But Publisher R1 offers a wide range of features that were only introduced in InDesign by version 2 ~three years later in 2022: transparency, TOC, indexes, glyphs panel, tables - to name but a few things.
And MANY features that are part of Publisher R1 only became available after years and years of development later in subsequent InDesign releases: multi-page PDF placing, bullets and numbering, dynamic spelling, IDML format, multiple page sizes in a single file, primary text frame, Hunspell dictionaries, anchored objects, data merging tools, doc info fields, hyperlinks (pdf), smart guides, effects, and so on and so forth.
InDesign 2 <--> Publisher R2
InDesign became somewhat usable compared to QuarkXPress three years later. Rather lacking, but it was the first release that professional users (including myself) began testing the waters with. SO MUCH was missing compared to Publisher R2. But one thing InDesign 2 had going for it: OS X was supported. QXP only supported that OS much later, and it was one reason why Mac users installed it.
The InDesign developers also inexplicably removed useful features such as SVG export in 2008 with CS4, however. (Publisher has been a gods' end in this regard: I have converted quite a few InDesign publications by opening the IDML, fixing a few things, and export the pages to SVG! 🙂 )
Version R2 of Publisher is a far more mature product compared to InDesign 2, 3, or even CS2 (which was released 8 years after version 1).
I am aware it is not possible to compare the development cycles of the two programs directly. Affinity Publisher started development in a time when dev tools have become easier and more efficient to develop with. But still, to state that development is lagging or slow is rather out-of-touch with the realities of complex software development.
In fact, I am quite impressed with what the Affinity devs have accomplished so far with Publisher. They are far ahead of the curve compared to InDesign's development cycle.
All that said, I do agree that there are a few inexplicable omissions in Publisher that seem so foundational to publishing in general that prevent myself from using it - because I simply cannot produce a press ready PDF. My personal pet peeve is the lack of 1bit bitmaps and support to output these properly in a PDF. The lack of spreads beyond two pages is another one. And reflowable epub export would be grand.
Yet as it is said: Rome was not built in a day. Neither was InDesign, and the same holds true for Affinity. Even though I cannot use Publisher yet for much of my work and still rely on InDesign, I position myself as a pragmatic person. I trust these issues will be tackled and solved in the not-so-long term. I am patient. And there is no need to flip over in anger over software or what could have been.
(I continued to use QuarkXPress till 6-7 years later after InDesign's first release).

Oh, come now. Let's be realistic, and compare Publisher's development progress with InDesign:
InDesign 1: Everything new! (1991) <--> Publisher R1: Everything New! (2019)
Both were products developed from scratch by companies with a deep understanding and experience developing design software.
Either first release lacked footnotes or book support. But Publisher R1 offers a wide range of features that were only introduced in InDesign by version 2 ~three years later in 2022: transparency, TOC, indexes, glyphs panel, tables - to name but a few things.
And MANY features that are part of Publisher R1 only became available after years and years of development later in subsequent InDesign releases: multi-page PDF placing, bullets and numbering, dynamic spelling, IDML format, multiple page sizes in a single file, primary text frame, Hunspell dictionaries, anchored objects, data merging tools, doc info fields, hyperlinks (pdf), smart guides, effects, and so on and so forth.
InDesign 2 <--> Publisher R2
InDesign became somewhat usable compared to QuarkXPress three years later. Rather lacking, but it was the first release that professional users (including myself) began testing the waters with. SO MUCH was missing compared to Publisher R2. But one thing InDesign 2 had going for it: OS X was supported. QXP only supported that OS much later, and it was one reason why Mac users installed it.
The InDesign developers also inexplicably removed useful features such as SVG export in 2008 with CS4, however. (Publisher has been a gods' end in this regard: I have converted quite a few InDesign publications by opening the IDML, fixing a few things, and export the pages to SVG! 🙂 )
Version R2 of Publisher is a far more mature product compared to InDesign 2, 3, or even CS2 (which was released 8 years after version 1).
I am aware it is not possible to compare the development cycles of the two programs directly. Affinity Publisher started development in a time when dev tools have become easier and more efficient to develop with. But still, to state that development is lagging or slow is rather out-of-touch with the realities of complex software development.
In fact, I am quite impressed with what the Affinity devs have accomplished so far with Publisher. They are far ahead of the curve compared to InDesign's development cycle.
All that said, I do agree that there are a few inexplicable omissions in Publisher that seem so foundational to publishing in general that prevent myself from using it - because I simply cannot produce a press ready PDF. My personal pet peeve is the lack of 1bit bitmaps and support to output these properly in a PDF. The lack of spreads beyond two pages is another one. And reflowable epub export would be grand.
Yet as it is said: Rome was not built in a day. Neither was InDesign, and the same holds true for Affinity. Even though I cannot use Publisher yet for much of my work and still rely on InDesign, I position myself as a pragmatic person. I trust these issues will be tackled and solved in the not-so-long term. I am patient. And there is no need to flip over in anger over software or what could have been.
(I continued to use QuarkXPress till 6-7 years later after InDesign's first release).

Oh, come now. Let's be realistic, and compare Publisher's development progress with InDesign:
InDesign 1: Everything new! (1991) <--> Publisher R1: Everything New! (2019)
Both were products developed from scratch by companies with a deep understanding and experience developing design software.
Either first release lacked footnotes or book support. But Publisher R1 offers a wide range of features that were only introduced in InDesign by version 2 ~three years later in 2022: transparency, TOC, indexes, glyphs panel, tables - to name but a few things.
And MANY features that are part of Publisher R1 only became available after years and years of development later in subsequent InDesign releases: multi-page PDF placing, bullets and numbering, dynamic spelling, IDML format, multiple page sizes in a single file, primary text frame, Hunspell dictionaries, anchored objects, data merging tools, doc info fields, hyperlinks (pdf), smart guides, effects, and so on and so forth.
InDesign 2 <--> Publisher R2
InDesign became somewhat usable compared to QuarkXPress three years later. Rather lacking, but it was the first release that professional users (including myself) began testing the waters with. SO MUCH was missing compared to Publisher R2. But one thing InDesign 2 had going for it: OS X was supported. QXP only supported that OS much later, and it was one reason why Mac users installed it.
The InDesign developers also inexplicably removed useful features such as SVG export in 2008 with CS4, however. (Publisher has been a gods' end in this regard: I have converted quite a few InDesign publications by opening the IDML, fixing a few things, and export the pages to SVG! 🙂 )
Version R2 of Publisher is a far more mature product compared to InDesign 2, 3, or even CS2 (which was released 8 years after version 1).
I am aware it is not possible to compare the development cycles of the two programs directly. Affinity Publisher started development in a time when dev tools have become easier and more efficient to develop with. But still, to state that development is lagging or slow is rather out-of-touch with the realities of complex software development.
In fact, I am quite impressed with what the Affinity devs have accomplished so far with Publisher. They are far ahead of the curve compared to InDesign's development cycle.
All that said, I do agree that there are a few inexplicable omissions in Publisher that seem so foundational to publishing in general that prevent myself from using it - because I simply cannot produce a press ready PDF. My personal pet peeve is the lack of 1bit bitmaps and support to output these properly in a PDF. The lack of spreads beyond two pages is another one. And reflowable epub export would be grand.
Yet as it is said: Rome was not built in a day. Neither was InDesign, and the same holds true for Affinity. Even though I cannot use Publisher yet for much of my work and still rely on InDesign, I position myself as a pragmatic person. I trust these issues will be tackled and solved in the not-so-long term. I am patient. And there is no need to flip over in anger over software or what could have been.
(I continued to use QuarkXPress till 6-7 years later after InDesign's first release).

Oh, come now. Let's be realistic, and compare Publisher's development progress with InDesign:
InDesign 1: Everything new! (1991) <--> Publisher R1: Everything New! (2019)
Both were products developed from scratch by companies with a deep understanding and experience developing design software.
Either first release lacked footnotes or book support. But Publisher R1 offers a wide range of features that were only introduced in InDesign by version 2 ~three years later in 2022: transparency, TOC, indexes, glyphs panel, tables - to name but a few things.
And MANY features that are part of Publisher R1 only became available after years and years of development later in subsequent InDesign releases: multi-page PDF placing, bullets and numbering, dynamic spelling, IDML format, multiple page sizes in a single file, primary text frame, Hunspell dictionaries, anchored objects, data merging tools, doc info fields, hyperlinks (pdf), smart guides, effects, and so on and so forth.
InDesign 2 <--> Publisher R2
InDesign became somewhat usable compared to QuarkXPress three years later. Rather lacking, but it was the first release that professional users (including myself) began testing the waters with. SO MUCH was missing compared to Publisher R2. But one thing InDesign 2 had going for it: OS X was supported. QXP only supported that OS much later, and it was one reason why Mac users installed it.
The InDesign developers also inexplicably removed useful features such as SVG export in 2008 with CS4, however. (Publisher has been a gods' end in this regard: I have converted quite a few InDesign publications by opening the IDML, fixing a few things, and export the pages to SVG! 🙂 )
Version R2 of Publisher is a far more mature product compared to InDesign 2, 3, or even CS2 (which was released 8 years after version 1).
I am aware it is not possible to compare the development cycles of the two programs directly. Affinity Publisher started development in a time when dev tools have become easier and more efficient to develop with. But still, to state that development is lagging or slow is rather out-of-touch with the realities of complex software development.
In fact, I am quite impressed with what the Affinity devs have accomplished so far with Publisher. They are far ahead of the curve compared to InDesign's development cycle.
All that said, I do agree that there are a few inexplicable omissions in Publisher that seem so foundational to publishing in general that prevent myself from using it - because I simply cannot produce a press ready PDF. My personal pet peeve is the lack of 1bit bitmaps and support to output these properly in a PDF. The lack of spreads beyond two pages is another one. And reflowable epub export would be grand.
Yet as it is said: Rome was not built in a day. Neither was InDesign, and the same holds true for Affinity. Even though I cannot use Publisher yet for much of my work and still rely on InDesign, I position myself as a pragmatic person. I trust these issues will be tackled and solved in the not-so-long term. I am patient. And there is no need to flip over in anger over software or what could have been.
(I continued to use QuarkXPress till 6-7 years later after InDesign's first release).

Oh, come now. Let's be realistic, and compare Publisher's development progress with InDesign:
InDesign 1: Everything new! (1991) <--> Publisher R1: Everything New! (2019)
Both were products developed from scratch by companies with a deep understanding and experience developing design software.
Either first release lacked footnotes or book support. But Publisher R1 offers a wide range of features that were only introduced in InDesign by version 2 ~three years later in 2022: transparency, TOC, indexes, glyphs panel, tables - to name but a few things.
And MANY features that are part of Publisher R1 only became available after years and years of development later in subsequent InDesign releases: multi-page PDF placing, bullets and numbering, dynamic spelling, IDML format, multiple page sizes in a single file, primary text frame, Hunspell dictionaries, anchored objects, data merging tools, doc info fields, hyperlinks (pdf), smart guides, effects, and so on and so forth.
InDesign 2 <--> Publisher R2
InDesign became somewhat usable compared to QuarkXPress three years later. Rather lacking, but it was the first release that professional users (including myself) began testing the waters with. SO MUCH was missing compared to Publisher R2. But one thing InDesign 2 had going for it: OS X was supported. QXP only supported that OS much later, and it was one reason why Mac users installed it.
The InDesign developers also inexplicably removed useful features such as SVG export in 2008 with CS4, however. (Publisher has been a gods' end in this regard: I have converted quite a few InDesign publications by opening the IDML, fixing a few things, and export the pages to SVG! 🙂 )
Version R2 of Publisher is a far more mature product compared to InDesign 2, 3, or even CS2 (which was released 8 years after version 1).
I am aware it is not possible to compare the development cycles of the two programs directly. Affinity Publisher started development in a time when dev tools have become easier and more efficient to develop with. But still, to state that development is lagging or slow is rather out-of-touch with the realities of complex software development.
In fact, I am quite impressed with what the Affinity devs have accomplished so far with Publisher. They are far ahead of the curve compared to InDesign's development cycle.
All that said, I do agree that there are a few inexplicable omissions in Publisher that seem so foundational to publishing in general that prevent myself from using it - because I simply cannot produce a press ready PDF. My personal pet peeve is the lack of 1bit bitmaps and support to output these properly in a PDF. The lack of spreads beyond two pages is another one. And reflowable epub export would be grand.
Yet as it is said: Rome was not built in a day. Neither was InDesign, and the same holds true for Affinity. Even though I cannot use Publisher yet for much of my work and still rely on InDesign, I position myself as a pragmatic person. I trust these issues will be tackled and solved in the not-so-long term. I am patient. And there is no need to flip over in anger over software or what could have been.
(I continued to use QuarkXPress till 6-7 years later after InDesign's first release).

InkScape features a quite decent bitmap autotracer, and is free.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I noticed the same thing, as did a few others. Some is absolutely organic, but most is not.
Most people haven’t a clue that big corporations use forum brigading all the time for nefarious purposes. It’s well documented.
There are a few active vocal “dissatisfied” users who spread into every thread like a toxic mold.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

I find some of these complaints in regard to update costs somewhat baffling.
8 years ago the first version of Affinity Designer was released. 7 years ago Photo. 3 years ago Publisher.
Throughout that time customers received free updates and upgrades, and many new users purchased the software at a reduced special offer price. I am one of those.
All the free updates actually made me feel I ought to ask Serif to charge me MORE, because the cost for V1 in relation to its functionality was always greatly in favour of its feature set. In short: very inexpensive for what was on offer.
V2 is a new release of Affinity. It is offered again at small cost compared to other commercial alternatives. V1 continues to run and isn't 'taken away'. There is no subscription. Unlike companies such as Adobe, older versions are not removed from the user's installation options. Serif's business model is based on the "you pay for it, you have an unlimited license" approach, which is actively abandoned by most other software companies.
Yet: like it or not, Serif has to generate revenue to cover development costs. They can't forever keep leaning on bringing in new users. The Affinity devs have always stated that free updates would be available for V1.xx. They stated unequivocally that V2.XX would become a paid upgrade.
Now, I understand that if a user purchased the software in the last 3 months, having to pay for a full upgrade is understandably inconvenient, and it would have been perhaps preferable for Serif to handle those cases differently.
But surely enough, at SOME point Serif has to make SOME money, otherwise business becomes untenable and they'll go bankrupt. Right?
Or perhaps Serif has a good reason to go down the subscription route after all: even IF you try with your best intentions to provide professional-level design software at a very affordable price level, AND offer 50% off to everyone at release time, STILL people complain about it.
If I were them, the subscription business model suddenly is beginning to look quite attractive. Because there is no use in trying to please everyone anyway.
PS I do agree that a grace period of 1 year or so to fix critical bugs in V1 would have been good to have and alleviate part of the complaints made.

I have noticed that the majority of negative and "disappointed will not upgrade" threads since V2 was released are all started by new accounts. There seems to be a recurring pattern: focus on a single missing feature that's been requested for a longer time or on the new Windows installation method. Or undermine the new features.
Quite a few also mention they will not invest in v2 further and insist they are loyal, but disappointed users. Or "I am really interested, but..." then say they cannot purchase the software until that X feature, that the Y commercial option happens to have, is added. Or they mention they will not upgrade. "It's a promising release, but we should wait it out". "Why isn't feature X implemented yet! Outrageous!".
All of them are thread starters. All seem focused on one thing: focusing on generating negative feelings about V2 and the Affinity products. And all of them are created by accounts that were set up by new accounts following the V2 release. Some use older accounts that were inactive for a long time.
And these accounts often respond to other complaints if that thread is not gaining enough traction.
If I were the moderators, I would investigate if a concerted attack is going on to undermine the v2 release. It seems rather suspicious.
I thought about listing examples, but I think that it becomes quite obvious for moderators once spotted.

CS5 and CS6 were arguably two of the best releases. Efficient, stable, and great performance. I still have those installed as well. In comparison, the current state of much of the apps is in disarray.
Photoshop CC 2023 is often a trial in patience to work in. Animate is a disaster area compared to the old Flash. Most of the CC apps are slow to work with, even on solid specced machines.
That said, I still rely on InDesign. I had expected to have made the switch to Publisher 2, but the critical lack of 1bit image support prevents me from doing so. Such a shame.

This reads as if your very happiness in life depends on a piece of software. A very mature and balanced response.
I noticed you created a new account to share your deeply felt outrage with this community.