Minimumsix13

Indeed, working with big vector pieces can mean mapping out tons of raw geometry, hitting select all, and then using the shape builder tool to merge, subtract, and trim at will without having to think about what is and isn't selected when working with standard boolean operations. It's actually a bigger deal than most people give it credit for and I'm quite surprised Affinity isn't jumping at the chance to put their own spin on something that lies at the heart of vector and object-based design: improving the user experience of working with shapes and operations.

I checked the specs on the Fire 10; I'm afraid that it having only 2GB of RAM alone might disqualify it. I could totally be wrong, though. And what @davemac2015 said—Affinity is a small team with a pretty specific focus. Not sure I'd hold my breath on that one  I'm also not sure I would want to use Designer on a not-iPad.

Well I think what we've gathered so far is that no one has a file format solution. Including Adobe—I'll give Affinity some props on cross-app file compatibility. The bottom line is that Adobe is an industry standard, but by no fault or action of their own other than getting in early. (this is the part where you chime in and tell me that's not the case because of other deprecated pieces of design software that no one cares about that have been around since the 80's. Affinity hit the scene well after Adobe was an established company and has caused quite a stir...that's not for nothing, so I say it's apples and oranges) Replace Adobe with Affinity in 1985 and things would look different. Affinity has proven themselves just as capable (or more so) of producing top-notch design software. Adobe just has several decades on them and that's all their is to it. Give Affinity 30 years of dev time and accrued revenue and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Right now, it's like comparing the abilities of an 18 year old and a gifted 5 year old. As gifted and as accelerated as that 5 year old might be, the 18 year old has, at the very least, an additional 13 years worth of experience and relational equity with those that surround them. And Affinity is gifted, take a look at the work some artists have made at Affinity Spotlight; you don't make stuff like some of this with crap software. For all the people that whine and moan that Affinity can't do "this or that" thing—you're right, it can't. But that hasn't stopped others from producing some really great work. Some jerk is going to argue with me that I'm "wrong" even though I'm not wrong, I'm just stating facts. So go ahead...
I have to use Adobe files for my work, but I do hop in and out of Affinity because it really is a better experience. There are some things I can't do with Affinity apps, but they'll get there. Performance alone is head and shoulders above Adobe—and it's because Affinity apps were built from scratch. I've been harping in Adobe forums for years for someone over there to just make the call to start on a fresh release of core apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. It might take some years but GOD I know they would be better for it. AI and PS are like a fat man squeezed into a corset.

Well I think what we've gathered so far is that no one has a file format solution. Including Adobe—I'll give Affinity some props on cross-app file compatibility. The bottom line is that Adobe is an industry standard, but by no fault or action of their own other than getting in early. (this is the part where you chime in and tell me that's not the case because of other deprecated pieces of design software that no one cares about that have been around since the 80's. Affinity hit the scene well after Adobe was an established company and has caused quite a stir...that's not for nothing, so I say it's apples and oranges) Replace Adobe with Affinity in 1985 and things would look different. Affinity has proven themselves just as capable (or more so) of producing top-notch design software. Adobe just has several decades on them and that's all their is to it. Give Affinity 30 years of dev time and accrued revenue and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Right now, it's like comparing the abilities of an 18 year old and a gifted 5 year old. As gifted and as accelerated as that 5 year old might be, the 18 year old has, at the very least, an additional 13 years worth of experience and relational equity with those that surround them. And Affinity is gifted, take a look at the work some artists have made at Affinity Spotlight; you don't make stuff like some of this with crap software. For all the people that whine and moan that Affinity can't do "this or that" thing—you're right, it can't. But that hasn't stopped others from producing some really great work. Some jerk is going to argue with me that I'm "wrong" even though I'm not wrong, I'm just stating facts. So go ahead...
I have to use Adobe files for my work, but I do hop in and out of Affinity because it really is a better experience. There are some things I can't do with Affinity apps, but they'll get there. Performance alone is head and shoulders above Adobe—and it's because Affinity apps were built from scratch. I've been harping in Adobe forums for years for someone over there to just make the call to start on a fresh release of core apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. It might take some years but GOD I know they would be better for it. AI and PS are like a fat man squeezed into a corset.

Well I think what we've gathered so far is that no one has a file format solution. Including Adobe—I'll give Affinity some props on cross-app file compatibility. The bottom line is that Adobe is an industry standard, but by no fault or action of their own other than getting in early. (this is the part where you chime in and tell me that's not the case because of other deprecated pieces of design software that no one cares about that have been around since the 80's. Affinity hit the scene well after Adobe was an established company and has caused quite a stir...that's not for nothing, so I say it's apples and oranges) Replace Adobe with Affinity in 1985 and things would look different. Affinity has proven themselves just as capable (or more so) of producing top-notch design software. Adobe just has several decades on them and that's all their is to it. Give Affinity 30 years of dev time and accrued revenue and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Right now, it's like comparing the abilities of an 18 year old and a gifted 5 year old. As gifted and as accelerated as that 5 year old might be, the 18 year old has, at the very least, an additional 13 years worth of experience and relational equity with those that surround them. And Affinity is gifted, take a look at the work some artists have made at Affinity Spotlight; you don't make stuff like some of this with crap software. For all the people that whine and moan that Affinity can't do "this or that" thing—you're right, it can't. But that hasn't stopped others from producing some really great work. Some jerk is going to argue with me that I'm "wrong" even though I'm not wrong, I'm just stating facts. So go ahead...
I have to use Adobe files for my work, but I do hop in and out of Affinity because it really is a better experience. There are some things I can't do with Affinity apps, but they'll get there. Performance alone is head and shoulders above Adobe—and it's because Affinity apps were built from scratch. I've been harping in Adobe forums for years for someone over there to just make the call to start on a fresh release of core apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. It might take some years but GOD I know they would be better for it. AI and PS are like a fat man squeezed into a corset.

Well I think what we've gathered so far is that no one has a file format solution. Including Adobe—I'll give Affinity some props on cross-app file compatibility. The bottom line is that Adobe is an industry standard, but by no fault or action of their own other than getting in early. (this is the part where you chime in and tell me that's not the case because of other deprecated pieces of design software that no one cares about that have been around since the 80's. Affinity hit the scene well after Adobe was an established company and has caused quite a stir...that's not for nothing, so I say it's apples and oranges) Replace Adobe with Affinity in 1985 and things would look different. Affinity has proven themselves just as capable (or more so) of producing top-notch design software. Adobe just has several decades on them and that's all their is to it. Give Affinity 30 years of dev time and accrued revenue and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Right now, it's like comparing the abilities of an 18 year old and a gifted 5 year old. As gifted and as accelerated as that 5 year old might be, the 18 year old has, at the very least, an additional 13 years worth of experience and relational equity with those that surround them. And Affinity is gifted, take a look at the work some artists have made at Affinity Spotlight; you don't make stuff like some of this with crap software. For all the people that whine and moan that Affinity can't do "this or that" thing—you're right, it can't. But that hasn't stopped others from producing some really great work. Some jerk is going to argue with me that I'm "wrong" even though I'm not wrong, I'm just stating facts. So go ahead...
I have to use Adobe files for my work, but I do hop in and out of Affinity because it really is a better experience. There are some things I can't do with Affinity apps, but they'll get there. Performance alone is head and shoulders above Adobe—and it's because Affinity apps were built from scratch. I've been harping in Adobe forums for years for someone over there to just make the call to start on a fresh release of core apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. It might take some years but GOD I know they would be better for it. AI and PS are like a fat man squeezed into a corset.

Well I think what we've gathered so far is that no one has a file format solution. Including Adobe—I'll give Affinity some props on cross-app file compatibility. The bottom line is that Adobe is an industry standard, but by no fault or action of their own other than getting in early. (this is the part where you chime in and tell me that's not the case because of other deprecated pieces of design software that no one cares about that have been around since the 80's. Affinity hit the scene well after Adobe was an established company and has caused quite a stir...that's not for nothing, so I say it's apples and oranges) Replace Adobe with Affinity in 1985 and things would look different. Affinity has proven themselves just as capable (or more so) of producing top-notch design software. Adobe just has several decades on them and that's all their is to it. Give Affinity 30 years of dev time and accrued revenue and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Right now, it's like comparing the abilities of an 18 year old and a gifted 5 year old. As gifted and as accelerated as that 5 year old might be, the 18 year old has, at the very least, an additional 13 years worth of experience and relational equity with those that surround them. And Affinity is gifted, take a look at the work some artists have made at Affinity Spotlight; you don't make stuff like some of this with crap software. For all the people that whine and moan that Affinity can't do "this or that" thing—you're right, it can't. But that hasn't stopped others from producing some really great work. Some jerk is going to argue with me that I'm "wrong" even though I'm not wrong, I'm just stating facts. So go ahead...
I have to use Adobe files for my work, but I do hop in and out of Affinity because it really is a better experience. There are some things I can't do with Affinity apps, but they'll get there. Performance alone is head and shoulders above Adobe—and it's because Affinity apps were built from scratch. I've been harping in Adobe forums for years for someone over there to just make the call to start on a fresh release of core apps like Photoshop and Illustrator. It might take some years but GOD I know they would be better for it. AI and PS are like a fat man squeezed into a corset.

Yeah I'll third this. And this is anecdotal but I've seen this issue noted in plenty of other threads, too. Unless you're really zoomed in it can be infuriating to either choose the correct node or to not accidentally grab a handle. I know the Pencil isn't as precise as a mouse pointer, but it's precise enough to distinguish nodes and handles from a comfortable zoom position. Threshold just needs to be turned down a little.

You and I value the same things. Shape builder + offset path all day err day.

This tool is a must have for complex design creation. I really hope it gets implemented in the next version 2.0 . Even if it means paying for an upgrade. I understand all the time and effort that goes into creating programs like this, so I am happy to contribute to get the upgrades.  

So I'm legitimately curious as to why you don't like a dark interface. And while I agree that the design software landscape could use some streamlining (always, always), I'm also curious as to what constitutes as eye candy. I mean don't get me wrong, I think there's always room for improvement, but when I was in school we actually had to design an alternative Photoshop concept. Dude—it's hard. There's just a lot to consider design-wise without even diving into the development side of things. So I guess I wax sympathetic to the devs when people criticize Adobe and Affinity because of that. Give it a shot sometime, it's fun but not for the faint-of-heart.

Indeed, working with big vector pieces can mean mapping out tons of raw geometry, hitting select all, and then using the shape builder tool to merge, subtract, and trim at will without having to think about what is and isn't selected when working with standard boolean operations. It's actually a bigger deal than most people give it credit for and I'm quite surprised Affinity isn't jumping at the chance to put their own spin on something that lies at the heart of vector and object-based design: improving the user experience of working with shapes and operations.

Indeed, working with big vector pieces can mean mapping out tons of raw geometry, hitting select all, and then using the shape builder tool to merge, subtract, and trim at will without having to think about what is and isn't selected when working with standard boolean operations. It's actually a bigger deal than most people give it credit for and I'm quite surprised Affinity isn't jumping at the chance to put their own spin on something that lies at the heart of vector and object-based design: improving the user experience of working with shapes and operations.

Indeed, working with big vector pieces can mean mapping out tons of raw geometry, hitting select all, and then using the shape builder tool to merge, subtract, and trim at will without having to think about what is and isn't selected when working with standard boolean operations. It's actually a bigger deal than most people give it credit for and I'm quite surprised Affinity isn't jumping at the chance to put their own spin on something that lies at the heart of vector and object-based design: improving the user experience of working with shapes and operations.

Meh. I could be alone on this one but a lot of people seem to just appreciate as dark a UI as possible in an effort to let the interface fade into the background and visually make the work the focus. It's also a lot easier on the eyes. Also, having a colored interface can cause perceptual issues with color. I forget the term, but as an example: putting something red next to something green will make the red appear to be a different chroma than if it were next to something, say, blue. Better to use neutral colors for the interface in order to keep all colors in the work appearing as accurate as possible.

Meh. I could be alone on this one but a lot of people seem to just appreciate as dark a UI as possible in an effort to let the interface fade into the background and visually make the work the focus. It's also a lot easier on the eyes. Also, having a colored interface can cause perceptual issues with color. I forget the term, but as an example: putting something red next to something green will make the red appear to be a different chroma than if it were next to something, say, blue. Better to use neutral colors for the interface in order to keep all colors in the work appearing as accurate as possible.

Hi talhuman,
Welcome to Affinity Forums :)
If you are using a Mac there's already a simpler media browser (menu View ▸ Browser...) you can use to load files from most common Mac libraries (iPhoto, Apple Photos, Aperture) as well as specific folders you add to it.
The Windows version doesn't have any integrated browser (which i assume it the version you are using from your request). As far as i know currently there's no plans to integrate a browser in the Windows version but we do intend/plan to develop a DAM application later which will integrate seamlessly with Affinity apps.

Meh. I could be alone on this one but a lot of people seem to just appreciate as dark a UI as possible in an effort to let the interface fade into the background and visually make the work the focus. It's also a lot easier on the eyes. Also, having a colored interface can cause perceptual issues with color. I forget the term, but as an example: putting something red next to something green will make the red appear to be a different chroma than if it were next to something, say, blue. Better to use neutral colors for the interface in order to keep all colors in the work appearing as accurate as possible.