someguy

So over the past few weeks I downloaded and test drove skylum's Luminar 3 ... and it was terrible. Slow (operations taking longer than 5 minutes), unresponsive, missing components ... it was really really bad. I remember reading that Serif is in the works of making the often requested DAM. I'm so glad they have made the decision to go this route. I think it would be a good time to start a new category in the forums specifically for this. Then move all appropriate threads into this area. Suggestions for Affinity (name here) I remember there being a poll about If the product should be made and what it should do. Personally, i'm interested in something that can compete with Capture One, outperform lightroom, and be reasonably priced.

keep in mind that serif could purchase a software company or the rights to something that is already built and make improvements to that product.

Is there an up to date list of officially supported cameras anywhere ?

Someone seemed to indicate that using any of the affinity products offline was possible and within the TOS/EULA ... so it would seem that the call home to verify legitimate active installs isn't needed. One easy way to comply with GDPR - don't collect user data. The legal requirements needed for Serif to conduct business that users must agree to would be clearly outlined in the privacy policy and TOS. It's pretty sparse there so I don't think your point has a lot of weight but it is valid to bring up. The argument seems to be contingent upon the pseudo-anonymized data collection for software development - one I've heard a lot about personally. That's fine, understandable .. but I'm merely asking a very simple question: Can we have an option to turn off such usage stats? That's a very reasonable request. The data they collect is minuscule presumably. Great. Let me opt out of it.

one way to foster such trust would be by providing a software option to turn off data analytics. I also dont think you have taken into account the users options. How much trust would you say i've allocated affinity products if I only run them on an airgaped machine, in a VM, looking over the application in IDA PRO, etc ?

GDPR has some details for anonymized data, and there is some great commentary as to what is considered non-subject, and what is. IF this is the information that is collected ... then at least rhetorically its not too intrusive. However - if this is all that is collected, it would be a kind gesture and good business practice to allow users who wish to opt out of such collection the ability to do so. I'd speculate we are talking about less than 2% of the entire user base cares - but for those who do .. they care deeply. Affinity applications collect some anonymous information, for example usage data, application name and version number, language and OS version but no Personal Data. This is used to ensure correct content is shown in the welcome screen of the applications and to help notify you of product updates. Important to keep in mind that this is all hypothetical. They collect data. We only know what they have told us. The people telling us this may be trustworthy and telling us the best information they can - that doesn't exclude the growing normalcy of everyday data breaches that occur due to some form of maliciousness, accident, or misjudgement. Give us the option to turn off data analytics.

I agree. If the data is as generic as they claim - then providing a sample of such collected data should be trivial. The data collecting code should also be subject to inspection. Are you granting users under gdpr protections the right to see what data you have collected on them ? The point is never that any one individual is particularly interesting and worthy of some grand act of maliciousness. It would be that your data is stolen and used by someone else to harass people, steal their identity, make correlations with other data that make it more useful, etc. Usage data. What specifics are known here? ill load up some of the windows apps and see if any of the traffic is unencrypted and capture what I can. Probably should be able to block outbound calls home via pihole Best solution: a simple opt in option for usage stats collection. Opted out is default. Compromise, respecting the user: opt in by default with a warning and an option to opt out.

Comments and thoughts welcome.

to affinity, please confirm which is an update (free) and an upgrade (paid to obtain). 1.0 - 1.99 all the same = update (free) ? Or is each tenths place after the decimal an upgrade and require a payment? IE 1.5 - 1.6 ?

The software versioning appears to be closing in on a 2.0 upgrade (not update) .. my question is do you have a policy that will grant users who purchase version ~1.7+ a free upgrade to 2.0 if that purchase occurs within ... say ... 4 months of the new 2.0 release?

well said @levelbest I will add, and I dont believe that Serif cant see who currently subscribes and that this stops them from moving a license from Apple to Windows or <-> ... with Serif being fully in control of the licensing this paves the way for at least a greater possibility of more licensing options. platform swaps Transfers of the active license to another user, if permitted by Serifs Terms One license for both Windows and Apple, with Serif permitting two active installs on any (meaning you can install on apple and windows with the same license, because some workflows are cross platform) These arent just good ideas for consumer choice - it's important to consider how designers work and how the product will be used.

I agree thank you serif for allowing purchases outside of the apple store.

Seems that in some locations the preferences you select are not remembered for example, when exporting as a pdf - the option to preview the file after its saved. If you check that box it is not remembered the next time you use it which can be frustrating.

scroll speed is too slow on pages When I scroll over pages in the pages menu, the speed seems extremely slow. Anyone else experience this? IMO, it should be quicker.

as someone who worked for the company in question ... there are many many nuances you are overlooking. There, of course, are benefits to using the MAS - there are also downfalls. what do you do when licensing issues arise and apple removes your software without a refund or the ability to redownload? what do you do when your apple ID is deleted, removed, locked without your ability to re-access it, etc? what do you do when Apples MAS terms become unfavorable to serif and that relationship ends? AD infinitum these benefits of software automation for updates and distribution have long been solved prior to the MAS - and I agree that software developers would be better spent developing software than spending time with distribution methods. Thats why such solutions exist for users that dont require the use of MAS. MAS is a third party within the pipeline of Serif software being sent to the consumer. Its an added step of complexity that is unnecessary. It is made necessary by ... Apple ... for reasons that are readily apparent. I'm sorry, I dont accept "it updates automatically" as a credible benefit that can only be accredited to the genius of Apple MAS. Apple created a walled garden, the MAS. Apple wants portions of all proceeds $$. Apple writes the rules for the MAS. Apple shifts its preferred business model often (now favoring subscription models). Of course Windows will follow suite, $$$ Of course using the MAS is easier .. Apple designed it that way. This doesnt negate the other arguments put forth. There is nothing wrong with your preference to purchase software directly through Apple. For many - this is a perfectly acceptable and preferred way. There is also nothing wrong with others saying - hey id rather buy it straight from Serif - give serif all my money, work with serif with refund requests and licensing questions instead of being sent to iTunes support for some prescripted denial of a refund because of the MAS terms that oversee the situation. I prefer to buy software from Serif, deal with Serifs rules, etc.

from my experience - there are a LOT of people who have been asking Adobe over the years for exactly this. Network saving instead of local saving ... so that they can do collaboration. So many people have asked that Adobe has up an entire page dedicated to basically stating - its not supported. Adobe also used terminology that is just odd ... creative CLOUD seems to indicate some type of collaboration .. i dunno. Collaborative editing is huge. I would be shocked if they dont move in this direction. I would be smart for Serif to beat them to it.

Having to give Apple a portion of the sale, therefor increasing the over product cost Having to follow Apples ever changing App Store terms (they are pushing for subscription models now) Having to deal with Apple instead of Serif for refunds, etc The ability to have and use your own product key, IMO, is a feature.

there needs to be some form of additional revenue streams other than the one time purchase of the application. Adobe's solution was subscriptions. Traditionally one time purchase software only receives small incremental changes and updates because there is a lack of new revenue other than new sales. We are unlikely to see huge new features being added to products already released, in my opinion. If serif ran a poll and stated they would implement three highly suggested features but that it would cost them 1.5 million CAD to create ... how would the community support such? Maybe stated differently - if users want those three features and it will cost 1.5 million to put into place but the funds are not there ... One possible solution? Collaborative editing via a cloud based system that you subscribe to. Adobe has been unable to do this, and if Serif pulled that off you would see a huge shift.

While your point is true when reviewing the apple developer agreement - there are ways to work around that and stay within their terms. One way - dont provide a refund for platform changes. Just provide the key/license within their application or on their user account. We are assuming the user is wanting to switch from mac to windows - that doesn't require a refund and a new purchase if the key is valid for both platforms.

as the prior commenter stated - there would be no apple portion to refund. Licenses/keys would be bought and managed by Serif. That's the upside. That is the benefit. How do you prevent dual installations from one key? Two answers: 1) you might not if Serif wanted to permit two active installs. But if they didnt 2) they would limit the key to one active installation which is totally possible even with the current setup. A custom solution just for me? No. A discussion about how their existing solution has been implemented along with possible alternatives is what is occurring here. Maybe limiting personal licenses to three active installs on the same platform (windows or Mac) with the option to change platforms entirely - and to achieve this the cost for production would be shared... which honestly in the grand view of things it already is. Or, what would be the point of limiting it to a single platform as Adobe does - heck permit two or three installs on any platform. Your just using your key. Serif seems to have segmented their product by platform. You have Desktop Mac, Desktop MS, iOS. A simplified structuring could look like: Desktop, Mobile.

your license/key is purchased through serif. You merely receive the application from MAS. Better yet, you just sign in with your already existing serif account via your email address which is tied to your product license. We aren't trading in serif for adobe, or ford for chevrolet, we are getting the same serif product on a different platform. Costs are clearly associated with multiple platforms - I assume the alternative would be a higher price point across the board to cover both platforms, with the option available for a user to switch from mac to windows or windows to mac. Obviously, Serif did not take this approach. From the users perspective - this is a huge part of vendor lock in. Not from serifs part entirely, but some of it is, but from the OS vendor. Apple and windows prefer when licensing works this way, through their stores, with their terms, etc. It further pushes a user into being highly financially tied to a specific platform. The question is - is that the best stance for a software developer to take with their consumers? Today - there isn't a lot of users switching. But maybe thats because of how licensing - like Serif's - is setup.

looks like the purchase page is passing at least the users email address and serif account details .. .serif knows this and im sure much more about each user (need to review the privacy policy) Serif can associate a user with an installation and should have no trouble preforming the swap - but the point about serif making the business decision not to offer such is most likely the actual reasoning behind this. Thats a better answer. This isnt impossible - it's functioning as intended due to their business model. Good for Serif, for users not so much I guess.

couldnt they do what everyone else does and continue to offer their product through the MAS, but the full blown version requires activation with a key that is bought through serif?

I do have a somewhat simplistic solution for this ... which i'm sure Serif is aware of .. if it would be of any use to the conversation.

One of the biggest selling points to our team would be something Adobe has an entire page explaining basically how they dont support it - saving directly to NAS and networked storage more specifically - saving to a networked storage location to which multiple individuals are working on the same file. To be clear, Adobe 'officially' wants you to save locally and how their setup works ... network storage and collaborative work isn't really something they designed for. Is this something Serif has considered, something that is already possible and documented somewhere?