Jump to content

AdrianB

Members
  • Content count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AdrianB

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree wholeheartedly! One think I really appreciate is Affinitys use of these forums to post updates on new versions and even new beta version with detailed changelog (like this). There is often Affinity replies to user feedback on specific bugs there as well. That is very useful in my opinion, and not seen from many of the larger software companies.
  2. Publisher was awarded by Apple as Mac App of the Year last month, so yeah, I do think they are going somewhere… even if they didn't prioritized you're pet peeve missing feature in Designer. But hey, we can come back to this thread say two years from today an revisit you're "Affinity is doomed" sentiment. Maybe you're right and it was the missing distortion warp that was the final nail in their coffin. Me, I think they will do just fine and most of their users will be very happy, as so many are already today. Feel free to go back to Adobe and their prices and treatment of customers…
  3. No they don't. Speak for yourself. I for one am impressed by the pace that they're constantly improving their products and how far they've come in just a couple of years. I know that software development takes time. They are a small company and have launched three major applications (Photo, Designer and Publisher) and are working with three platforms at the same time (Mac, Windows and iPad) and still they manage to deliver. Yes, there are still "obvious" features missing here and there and there. Yes, there is imperfections and some subpar implementations (expanding stroke for example). On the other hand some new features and ways to do things are pleasant improvements over the old (Adobe) ways. The unified file format is a game changer. And at least on Mac all three apps are very stable (hardly ever a crash) and I've used them all extensively last year and really appreciate working with them. Also, what duckrabbit said above.
  4. I second that. I've been working extensively in all three apps these past months preparing for a big event, discovering features and sometimes new ways to do things (like, draw a straight line in Publisher) and for the most part it has been just great, even fun actually. And these forums are invaluable whenever I hit a roadblock.
  5. Clearly, we have different needs, and that's ok. I'm not trying to convince you to use Publisher and it's still a young application. I do use it as my main app and I'm very happy with it so far, even with some glaring issues (trying to work with tables in Publisher was not fun).
  6. I've worked with Quark ages ago, but I was always an Aldus PageMaker guy and never really liked Quark. Different kind of approach (at least it was back then). What I meant with ”the only reasonable replacement for InDesign” is in the spirit of PageMaker och InDesign, and for my needs. I'm not trying to speak for everyone. I was quite happy with InDesign but I did not like, and could not motivate paying for, the subscription of Adobe CC. Moving on from Photoshop and Illustrator was easier, there are other good graphic applications for Mac that meet most of my needs, but I never found an replacement for InDesign and I kept using my old CS5 version as long as I could. Also, QuarkXPress is way more expensive than Affinity Publisher. Their licence model is better that Adobe's but the "two years of upgrades" is like ten times the price of Publisher (I'm guessing updates to the current 1.x of Affinity Publisher will be free until 2.x is released, an that will probably be at least two year after I bought 1.7). I wasn't speaking in the context of IDML import or any kind of specific handling of InDesign documents. I was talking about desktop publishing applications in general, that I felt could make me leave InDesign, and Affinity Publisher is the first for me. I really like it the same way I like InDesign, it is low friction and I can be as productive as before. There might be other applications out there that I've yet to discover, that's why I ended my statement with "that I've ever come across so far”.
  7. I am very, very thankful that they stick with the old license model and stay away from subscriptions, but suggesting that the current version of Publisher a waste of money is harsh just because you can't import a 400 pages book. Even in the current 1.7 version (without any import at all) it is a delight to work with most of the time when creating new stuff, even if there are missing features and rough edges. Publisher is the only reasonable replacement for InDesign that I've ever come across so far. And the price is very low, even reasonable for consumers and a steal for professionals. Especially if you compare to the cost of Adobe CC. (Also, I think you're setting yourself up for a disappointment if you expect a ”full IDML support” that handles every edge case and huge projects. Not every feature from InDesign will have a perfect match in Publisher.)
  8. Well, those people can continue to pay the Adobe tax for now, then. Others, like me, are very happy to have the best alternative so far and for a very fair (non-subscription!) price at that. Yes, Affinitys products doesn't have decades of refining yet and there are even some basic things missing, among the thousands of basic features that already are implemented. Crying that the software "is that silly” just because this one feature is not as convenient as in Photoshop right now is sort of childish. And this whole ”failure to become the new number one”, who says Affinity has to be the number one? They can thrive just fine being an awesome alternative that keeps getting better and better. Not Affinity, nor any other graphic software company, will dethrone Adobe in the near future.
  9. FYI the 1.8 beta of Publisher has IDML import! It's a start:
  10. They specifically said that INDD is not coming, only IDML. So until they say otherwise you shouldn't expect it at all. But as mentioned above, there are ways to prepare for that by converting to IDML using [batch] scripts.
  11. You make it sound like they promised a release a year ago, but the only thing they said is that they are working on IDML support but they can't give any timeline. Also they said it's not a trivial feature to implement. That's not how software development works. Unless you're almost finished you really don't know how long it will take to implement a complex feature, any "accurate information" would be guesstimates at best. And then there's the whole business part of it, Affinity have to decide what features and development to prioritize over others through a whole series of applications and platforms, depending on God knows how many variables. And things constantly change along the way. So they know better than to give ”accurate info” when there are uncertainties ahead.
  12. You simple cannot understand software development. Publisher is still brand new! They cannot put in every feature every user "demands" in the first release. It's not like the first release of Pagemaker had every feature of the current InDesign version. We all have different priorities, but there are way more features out there that are essential than this, for most users (I'd guess more people probably need IDML import first). Packaging is convenient and they are working on it for future releases. Until then the current version of Publisher is quite capable for creating content for many users and it's without doubt the best thing that has come to life for desktop publishing, for us who want an InDesign replacement.
  13. Exporting all your InDesign work as both IDML and PDF is probably the safest bet (maybe even creating InDesign packages). The script I've mentioned earlier helps with batch exporting.
  14. That's just BS. Those who need to open InDesign files are a large group, no doubt, but not the entire market. They do love to come here and demand support for InDesign files, for sure. With the low price of AP they reach segments that Adobe never did. I've been using InDesign since it was Aldus Pagemaker and going forward I'll be using Publisher (with great joy). My business is not big enough to justify the continuous payment of CC, even if I wanted to. But Publisher is a no-brainer.
×

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.