AdrianB

This still comes back to bite me all the time, and it's so annoying.
”Why isn't the cursor working when I try to select something…? 🤔 Oh, right, it switched to hand tool again… 🤬"
I've yet to find a single instance where I found the switch to hand tool preferable and I always want the move tool. 

Hi - I'm pleased to say WebP and JPEG XL are now available from batch export in the 2.1 beta as below. If you want try it out in the beta you can sign up to our beta program here.
 
 

Macromedia Freehand was (and still is) the best vector app that has ever existed. There is one feature alone in that app that was better than anything I’ve ever seen in any other app. It was the Graphics Find & replace panel. Apparently, no one else ever used it but me, because no one is submitting feature requests for it to Adobe. You could use it to find anything in your Freehand doc and replace it with anything else. It was amazing. I will never forgive Adobe for buying Macromedia and killing that app. I have to use Adobe software at work, but I will never again install their apps on my home computer. 
I also cannot ever get used to having more than one arrow tool. It seems so dumb. The one arrow selection tool was able to do everything that multiple arrow selection tools do in all these other apps.
I also share in the frustration of the UI elements, especially the new poorly drawn icons compared to V1. The UI was fine in V1. What we needed were things like a blend tool. Hopefully, those other things that have already been requested before will be added in a future free update and not 5 years from now.

I think exporting to WebP and JPEG XL landed only shortly before the launch. In one of the tutorial videos about exporting in Photo V2 it was missing completely and they said in the comment that it landed after the video was recorded, just before launch. So may they still are catching up and will add it to batch conversion soon, I hope. 

Well, I know there was a small beta in January but that was just some minor bugfix, if I remember correctly, and the last significant change was way back i November last year, so I'm calling it a year 😄

Improving the current suite is more than enough to make me happy, but the whole "One more thing" at the end suggest something else, right?  
I agree that video editing seems like to big of a chunk right now, but som sort of DAM (like an Aperture replacement that a lot of us are longing for) wouldn't be that far off from what they already are invested in with Photo, so maybe they could do that without stretching themselves too thin. 

Improving the current suite is more than enough to make me happy, but the whole "One more thing" at the end suggest something else, right?  
I agree that video editing seems like to big of a chunk right now, but som sort of DAM (like an Aperture replacement that a lot of us are longing for) wouldn't be that far off from what they already are invested in with Photo, so maybe they could do that without stretching themselves too thin. 

Well, I know there was a small beta in January but that was just some minor bugfix, if I remember correctly, and the last significant change was way back i November last year, so I'm calling it a year 😄

Yes, you will have to pay for the next major version somehow, I think they made that public a long time ago. (And it's fine as long as they don't go subscription, I'm more than happy to pay, their prices are a steal anyway compared to that other company).

(Edit: Oh I see Patrick was faster with an official answer.)

Marketing teams will handle all the questions soon, but I do not think anyone will be disappointed with the 2.0 launch (well almost nobody  )

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

I think a lot of the negative comments comes from people thinking that the Affinity suite is supposed to match the Adobe suite 1:1, and if that is your point of view then you're bound for disappointment, since it's easy to find areas where the Adobe applications still are better, given decades of development. 
But if you just look at the Affinity applications for what they already are, not comparing them with others, it's quite easy to see that they are a tremendous value for the money. Even if you would have to buy them all over again for version 2. 
(Also: the Affinity suite already have some advantages over Adobe, the unified file format is genius and deserves all praise!)

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

It’s nothing wrong with the ambition to replace the Adobe suit for some of its users, and it’s pretty obvious that Photo/Designer/Publisher aims for Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign.
That is actually how I use them, and l’ve been using the Adobe products for a long time (all the way back to Aldus Pagemaker days!). But you have to set your expectations accordingly and accept that you will stumble on various WTF:s when some feature is missing or not working as well as the Adobe equivalent. 

That is clearly part of the problem och the source of a lot of misconception (and disappointment).
Still, some common sense could go a long way, if applied. Like reading what Serif says, actually trying the free trial versions to form an independent opinion, looking at the huge price difference and understanding that Photoshop has been around and evolved for over 30 years. 

That is clearly part of the problem och the source of a lot of misconception (and disappointment).
Still, some common sense could go a long way, if applied. Like reading what Serif says, actually trying the free trial versions to form an independent opinion, looking at the huge price difference and understanding that Photoshop has been around and evolved for over 30 years. 

That is clearly part of the problem och the source of a lot of misconception (and disappointment).
Still, some common sense could go a long way, if applied. Like reading what Serif says, actually trying the free trial versions to form an independent opinion, looking at the huge price difference and understanding that Photoshop has been around and evolved for over 30 years. 

I think a lot of the negative comments comes from people thinking that the Affinity suite is supposed to match the Adobe suite 1:1, and if that is your point of view then you're bound for disappointment, since it's easy to find areas where the Adobe applications still are better, given decades of development. 
But if you just look at the Affinity applications for what they already are, not comparing them with others, it's quite easy to see that they are a tremendous value for the money. Even if you would have to buy them all over again for version 2. 
(Also: the Affinity suite already have some advantages over Adobe, the unified file format is genius and deserves all praise!)

I think a lot of the negative comments comes from people thinking that the Affinity suite is supposed to match the Adobe suite 1:1, and if that is your point of view then you're bound for disappointment, since it's easy to find areas where the Adobe applications still are better, given decades of development. 
But if you just look at the Affinity applications for what they already are, not comparing them with others, it's quite easy to see that they are a tremendous value for the money. Even if you would have to buy them all over again for version 2. 
(Also: the Affinity suite already have some advantages over Adobe, the unified file format is genius and deserves all praise!)

I think a lot of the negative comments comes from people thinking that the Affinity suite is supposed to match the Adobe suite 1:1, and if that is your point of view then you're bound for disappointment, since it's easy to find areas where the Adobe applications still are better, given decades of development. 
But if you just look at the Affinity applications for what they already are, not comparing them with others, it's quite easy to see that they are a tremendous value for the money. Even if you would have to buy them all over again for version 2. 
(Also: the Affinity suite already have some advantages over Adobe, the unified file format is genius and deserves all praise!)

I think a lot of the negative comments comes from people thinking that the Affinity suite is supposed to match the Adobe suite 1:1, and if that is your point of view then you're bound for disappointment, since it's easy to find areas where the Adobe applications still are better, given decades of development. 
But if you just look at the Affinity applications for what they already are, not comparing them with others, it's quite easy to see that they are a tremendous value for the money. Even if you would have to buy them all over again for version 2. 
(Also: the Affinity suite already have some advantages over Adobe, the unified file format is genius and deserves all praise!)

To ALL here: Please do not get personal with your replies. Express your opinions without criticizing others and certainly do not make personal attacks or question motives. It achieves nothing.