Combine Publisher and Designer?

[Framelynx]

(I've been using Indesign as illustrator and Photoshop for 10 years, and have made many magazine spreads on InDesign and Logos and Illustrations in Illustrator etc.)

 

Forgive my ignorance on the matter but is it possible to combine a vector program and page layout program in one? Or would that bloat the program too much? Perhaps text flow programming is more complicated than it looks and requires an completely new program?

 

I'm guessing Affinity will probably just go ahead and make Affinity.Publisher and ONLY THEN consider other possibilities.

It's just that whenever I use inDesign and Illustrator, sometimes I make a quick logo in indesign whilst doing a page layout and needing to transfer it to Illustrator. InDesign just feels like a stripped down vector program sometimes. And illustrator feels like inDesign without the option of adding pages and columns in a text box. image Linking and other features too of course.

Illustrator and Indesign just seem practically very similar sometimes. Is there a good reason why they can't be one?

 

If Affinity do combine the 2 in future, I'd gladly pay another $50 or more. Anything beats paying Adobe $1000 every year!... seriously...

[Julian23]

+1

 

I would prefer to buy an addon license "Pages" for Designer instead of a separate Product which internally shares most of the code. 

 

Since I have "Photo" I would also like to use the proprietary filters in Designer directly without having to switch forth and back. Since the products are hold separately they consume more space of my (thanks to Apple) expensive SSD space than necessary.

 

I find this separation of features quite annoying in PagePlus vs DrawPlus - I always was missing a feature in one GUI which was existent in the other. For example DrawPlus has this great vector brushes and ISO drawing, PagePlus instead has better alignment and character spacing control. 

 

Serif could bring out the basis "Designer" or "Photo" and sell missing "Personalities" as add ons via InApp purchases. This would be a very modern way to sell the work, and would directly reflect the concept with the "Personalities". It should be possible to accept existing separate licenses as "Addon" licenses.

[Oval]

Would be an idea to generate more money with In-App Purchase / add-ons (e.g. for CAD or 3D capabilities).

 

 

PS: There is a reason why there is no app on market that combines a whole layout and design app.

[Julian23]

PS: There is a reason why there is no app on market that combines a whole layout and design app.

 

Classic layout programs do not hold the content which is displayed - Images and text are loaded from separate files and are distributed in frames. This is the reason they do not have their own vector module.

 

I would be surprised if Affinity Publisher would work like such a layout program. I would rather expect an approach like Affinity Designer obviously with added multi page support + connected text boxes, + image placeholder and extended text features. It would do no harm to "Publisher" if it also has i.e. the "Pixel Personality" of Designer or if "Designer" has the character baseline control of Publisher.

 

In fact - I have a use for both wether I design a one page or multi page document.

 

... and there are programs which combine the feature set, also for OSX, not as slick as Affinity though.

[Petar Petrenko]

+1

I also asked for this few months earlier, though for ALL the programs, because designing is consisted of using all these programs in any combination, not only one of them.

I agree that Designer and Publisher have a lot of code in common and nobody can exactly say what strictly belongs to Publisher and what to Designer. Both of them are primarily vector oriented.

But (for now) Affinity team does not like this suggestion at all.

[Oval]

there are programs which combine the feature set

 

Let us know some, please.

[Julian23]

Let us know some, please.

For Windows obviously: Serif PagePlus - it has very nice vector support.

 

For Windows and OSX: Photoline - it has very power bitmap (8, 16, 32 bit) and layer tools and also vector functionality.

It has pretty powerful text tools (kerning, alignment, multi page text flow). Like PagePlus it also allows linked images.

 

But (for now) Affinity team does not like this suggestion at all.

 

I can understand that they prefer to have 3 "apps" instead of a single one with extras, it makes the product more visible. They probably also care about illegal hacks which would enable all "goodies" at once.

 

 

One possibility to avoid those hacks would be the download of an "enabler app" instead of the full download.

 

If, for example, I already have Designer and I purchase Photo, I could only download the  "Photo enabler" application instead of the full 500 MB Affinity Photo and that will 

1) enable the photo tools in Designer

2) Create a shortcut which starts Designer as if it was "Photo"

 

Of course the "enabler app" could contain some required data, such as resources for the GUI and maybe additional contents, such as brushes.

 

This approach should make everyone happy.

[Oval]

Classic layout programs do not hold the content which is displayed - Images and text are loaded from separate files and are distributed in frames. This is the reason they do not have their own vector module.

 

Serif PagePlus - it has very nice vector support.

So, InDesign is not a layout app?!

 

Well, that was not the question: Serif PagePlus does not combine a whole layout and design app. The vector tools are not as large as those in Illustrator or Designer.

[Hokusai]

Would be an idea to generate more money with In-App Purchase / add-ons (e.g. for CAD or 3D capabilities).

 

 

PS: There is a reason why there is no app on market that combines a whole layout and design app.

Oval,

 

I would guess that the reason for this is because if they did, the program would be "a Jack of all trades and master of none". The program would be mediocre at many things but not good at anything. For me, I'd rather not have a program like that. A layout program and vector program have different focuses and as well different tool sets. So it is natural to separate them. Think of a hammer. A hammer is for hammering nails but you could use it for other things like opening glass bottles or as a paperweight (there are probably plenty of other uses as well) but those things are not what a hammer was designed for. Can you use it for other purposes? Yes you can but you would be better off using a tool that was specifically designed for that purpose. The same is true in this case. I know lots of people who use Illustrator (and before Freehand) to do page layout. Sure it works but it isn't the right tool for the job and in the end it doesn't work as well as if they had used a proper layout program. It will do in a pinch but it isn't the right tool for the job and using the right tool for the job makes all the difference in the world. Think of those multi-tool things that they sell that have different screw drivers and some other different tools all combined. Do they work? Yes, they do but they aren't nearly as a regular (singularly focused) tool. They are designed for the average joe, not the professional. Most professionals wouldn't use them because they don't work as well. Of course there is going to be some crossover tools but in general specialization is better. 

 

Hoksuai

[Oval]

Yeah, thanks, this is the truth, Hokusai.

 

Everything has its market. And the market for an app that combines all Illustrator capabilities and all InDesign capabilities is very small because there are not many great (vector) illustrators that are great in layout. This is the only reason (in my opinion). InDesign has many Illustrator capabilities, but not all. Adobe could combine them completely but the market is not seen.

 

@Julian23:

Of course, layout programs can “hold the content”, e.g. InDesign can embed psds, eps, jpgs, etc. But it makes sense in many cases to store the link.

[Stephen_H]

I vote for keeping them as separate, focussed apps.

 

I believe that if one app did everything, it would become a consumer product.

 

A designer is a bit of a vague term and covers so many disciplines, but professionals are largely specialists in their fields. If you imagine ADesigner as being aimed at illustrators and creative conceptualisers, and APublisher being aimed at layout, DTP , then you understand why ADesigner doesn't have drop caps, master pages and paragraph styles, and why APublisher probably won't have the artistic brushes and warp mesh tools – they're just not used by the same disciplines.

 

I'm a bit bummed by the current poor PDF exporting of ADesigner, but I realise that it's aimed at exporting images to be placed on websites and in brochures – not actually exporting complete websites and brochures. I'm quite certain that APublisher is going to have awesome PDF export abilities because that's the tool to create print-ready documents that will need soft proofing, bleed & cropmarks, custom compression and so on.

 

Sure you can make a simple z-fold flyer in Illustrator because it supports multiple pages, but have you ever tried making a 16 page brochure in it? It's possible, but it will drive you absolutely insane, guaranteed! Adobe has lost it's "tool for the job" focus and has left us with over engineered "Jack of All Trades" that have us all so desperate for new alternatives like Affinity's products.

 

Let's not drive Affinity in the same direction as Adobe – it will only hurt us when we [again] find ourselves looking for fresh new products in 10 years time.

[Petar Petrenko]

Designer and Publisher can/must definitely be joined into one app.

Photo can also join that union but, let don't push things that way, for now.

It is still not too late. Developers can start adding Publisher's functionality to Designer and join these two apps into one on the fly.

[Seneca]

Please don't do that. It's a stupid idea.

[Ben]

I think we've given our reasons for having separate apps a number of times already.  There is clearly separation between the tool requirements and use cases.  Having an uber app at a high flat cost would not appeal to the vast majority.  We see a lot more interest in photo editing compared to vector drawing (just due to the nature of the average user), so would someone who only wants to do pixel work want to pay for advanced vector tools?  Probably not, and why should they?

 

What we have done, which no one else does - is to offer a seamless handling of our files between our apps.  So, you can work on the same file between all our apps - and not have to import/update content from one app to another.  We also give you fast hand over of open files between apps, with full working history.  So, while we are not doing a single app - we have certainly given you the best alternative, and in a pattern that should work best for all users - not just those who will benefit from the entire suite.

[Ben]

Thanks, Stephen_H for talking a little sense on the subject.

[cekuhnen]

Look at what freehand was. That was an illustration and page layout tool till Adobe killed it!

 

If affinity does not this I will remain with my Adobe cs 6

[Hokusai]

cekuhnen,

 

While Freehand had multi-page or artboards, it was never a page layout program. Sure some people used it for that but it was never designed to be a page layout program.

 

Hokusai

[Shmoo]

 

I vote for keeping them as separate, focussed apps.

 

+1 

[Mr. Doodlezz]

 

I vote for keeping them as separate, focussed apps.

 

Signed.

 

Please, no – why would I need a massive application that loads every single function available at startup if I just

want to layout 16 pages with accurately formatted text, maybe place a few images and a logo delivered by a client?

 

Right now I just know exactly what app I need to fire up for which purpose – no unnecessary loading time,

no wasted memory usage on functions I won't need during the process or the session.

 

Yeah, I know a few of these people, too. Creating logos in InDesign … never fully understood it, I think functions are 

very limited but especially unintuitive for that purpose – but hey, whatever floats your boat.  :rolleyes:

 

Cheers

Dennis

[Herbert123]

Jack of all trades, master of none. 'nuff said.

[jmac]

Combining Designer, Photo and Publisher makes as much sense as Lamborghini building a sports car/SUV/minivan/pickup truck combination in an effort to satisfy every single potential use for an automobile all in one vehicle.

[Mr. Doodlezz]

Affinity Phodesublishner.

 

Hey, you know what? Why not integrate a 3D hub as well as a multimedia panel?

This will become the ultimate all-in-one-app solution you’ll ever need!

 

No, hold on. How about – Affinity OS.

 

That would actually be pretty rad, I think.  :D

 

Haha, sorry for teasing.  :P

Dennis

[Shmoo]

Don't forget After Effects. If there is something cool about relatively  boring Adobe it's After Effects.

 

If you'd sneak into their office at night and rip all their After Effects code - Adobe would be a complete dinosaur over night.  :lol:

 

 

You can't visit Dribbble on a single day anymore without seeing some mega sexy After Effects project in the top 20 listings.

Take a look how much detail goes into each of those legs. This is the future of being cool with software. I bet you, if you can do this with software,  ...two chicks at the same time without a million dollars for you.  :wub:

 

[Stephen_H]

Affinity Phodesublishner.

 

Hey, you know what? Why not integrate a 3D hub as well as a multimedia panel?

This will become the ultimate all-in-one-app solution you’ll ever need!

 

 

Will that come in 'Lite' and 'Pro' versions?

[ajay.ganapathy]

The software should not be combined. Affinity already makes a file format that can not only be shared but embedded and simultaneously updated in both softwares.