Affinity Suite: Blocking of versions, very bad idea

[Pyanepsion]

Hello,

With the new beta 1.9.0.742, a lower version can no longer open the file of a higher version. Let's not mince our words: this is stupid.

The lack of backward compatibility is often a pretext for a change in the storage structure. There are in fact techniques to avoid using the newer versions. For example, this is what happens with the Internet.

The real reason for this incompatibility is usually rather to be found in the lure of gain. Its purpose, its initiators generally believe, is to oblige former users to acquire the new version. The reality is different: it ghettoizes the software, because who wants to buy software if they can no longer communicate with their customers or suppliers as soon as the version numbers are different? Microsoft learned this in time with the first feedback from the beta testers of the Office 2007 suite, which had forced it to urgently change the file extension.

😀Give us back upward compatibility...

[Patrick Connor]

Beta builds are side-by-side with the release version, so you can choose which version to use for your files. You should not save production files with a beta build, as described in every beta announcement thread ("not suitable for production use"). Your logic also ignores the fact that all 1.x updates are free, so during the 1.x cycle you never get the situation you describe with customers, as no new acquisition is needed.  This situation will occur when 2.0 is released and you should make the choice about working on files using a later file format in terms of the audience they are for.

There are no plans to add "upward compatibility, but that is a valid user suggestion for 2.0.

[Pyanepsion]

You are straying on irrelevant considerations and have not grasped the essentials. My message is a warning to avoid a big mistake.

If two users of different versions cannot exchange their files, you will, of course, sometimes cause the user of the lower version to be forced to update [he will resent you], but you will also cause many more people not to acquire the software.

[walt.farrell]

3 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

With the new beta 1.9.0.742, a lower version can no longer open the file of a higher version. Let's not mince our words: this is stupid.

That has been true forever with the Affinity suite, and is not new to this 1.9 beta version.

1.5 could not open files saved by 1.6, and 1.6 could not open 1.7 files, and 1.7 could not open 1.8 files, and 1.8 probably won't be able to open 1.9 files. The change of the number in the decimal position (5,6,7,8,9) generally is done when an incompatible file format is being created.

[Pyanepsion]

I had never paid attention to that. I was alerted when a user of forum was unable to load a file from beta 1.9 because he used the commercial version which is in 1.8. Of course, Affinity has to come back to this bad idea, because far from provoking a purchase of the new version, many examples of software show that this constraint is a brake on purchasing since it becomes very complicated to communicate between the customer and his supplier.

[carl123]

Versions 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 etc can all coexist on the same PC (Windows) 

So, I use the latest version when doing work for clients that don't use Affinity software but, in a case, where I know a client only has 1.7 I will simply switch to 1.7 and use that for that particular client.

Not ideal but how can someone using 1.7 realistically access functions from a 1.8 document if all the new code put into in 1.8 isn't in 1.7?

 

[walt.farrell]

8 minutes ago, carl123 said:

Versions 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 etc can all coexist on the same PC (Windows) 

Really? How do you get them installed successfully so they don't conflict?

[Pyanepsion]

11 minutes ago, carl123 said:

Not ideal but how can someone using 1.7 realistically access functions from a 1.8 document if all the new code put into in 1.8 isn't in 1.7?

We do not encounter this restriction from another time with software such as Microsoft Office and other similar software. For example, it is perfectly possible to load a Word 2003 document into Word 2019, or a Word 2019 document into Word 2007.

😉And fortunately, because otherwise we would not be able to work with a large part of our clients. The customer will obviously not see exactly the same thing, but is this a problem?

[carl123]

9 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Really? How do you get them installed successfully so they don't conflict?

Well in brief as I'm off out now

Just before I upgrade to the Released version of 1.9 Affinity Photo

I will rename the C:/Program Files/Affinity/Affinity Photo/ folder to C:/Program Files/Affinity/Affinity Photo 1.8/ and remap the existing shortcut to the executable in that folder

Then I install 1.9 which will update all the files in C:/Program Files/Affinity/Affinity Photo/ to the 1.9 version

If you tend to customize Affinity a lot (shortcuts, brushes, assets etc) then you just copy the propcol files across too when switching between versions. All of this is done in a batch file linked to the particular shortcut icon for each version)

Previously done this starting from 1.6 through 1.7 and 1.8

EDIT: (9 hours later) I meant to say "I will copy (not rename) the C:/Program Files/Affinity/Affinity Photo/ folder to C:/Program Files/Affinity/Affinity Photo 1.8/ and remap the existing shortcut to the executable in that folder

[carl123]

15 minutes ago, Pyanepsion said:

The customer will obviously not see exactly the same thing.

Isn't that a big problem when doing design work?

[Pyanepsion]

Quite the contrary! If the customer is using an old version of a software, professionals on the other hand generally use a recent version, and it is therefore our version that must be provided to these professionals.

[Jowday]

4 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

We do not encounter this restriction from another time with software such as Microsoft Office and other similar software. For example, it is perfectly possible to load a Word 2003 document into Word 2019, or a Word 2019 document into Word 2007.

😉And fortunately, because otherwise we would not be able to work with a large part of our clients. The customer will obviously not see exactly the same thing, but is this a problem?

It is an annoying limitation I have rarely struggled with before. I am used to this fx:

Quote

If you are using Microsoft Office Word 2007 or Word 2010, you can open .docx or .docm files that were created in Word 2016 and 2013. However, a few newer features may not be supported in older versions or they may not be editable. For example, equations in later files are converted to images in earlier versions of Word, which can’t be edited.

It is all about architecture and usability.

It is also a very, very efficient method to avoid professional customers. One among many methods. And they all work.

[Pšenda]

6 hours ago, carl123 said:

where I know a client only has 1.7

Just out of curiosity - why does the client use this old version when he can update to a newer one for free?

[carl123]

7 hours ago, Pšenda said:

Just out of curiosity - why does the client use this old version when he can update to a newer one for free?

Some bigger/stricter organizations do not routinely upgrade versions just because they are free.

Due to such reasons as...

The workload involved (logistics)
The need to thoroughly test before upgrading
No immediate need for the new features in the new version
New problems encountered with new versions
Training/documentation requirements for new versions

etc

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by carl123
Corrected spelling error (logostics)

[Pšenda]

3 hours ago, carl123 said:

Some bigger/stricter organizations do not routinely upgrade versions just because they are free.

Due to such reasons as...

The workload involved (logostics)
The need to thoroughly test before upgrading
No immediate need for the new features in the new version
New problems encountered with new versions
Training/documentation requirements for new versions

etc

Of course, such an approach can be understood in large companies and some types of software (such as OS, Office, etc.). After experience with problematic updates, I am also waiting for all labor pains to be resolved. However, I consider Affinity applications to be a different type of SW, used by individuals/specific department rather than the whole company. Regardless of the fact that they would have to be desperate from the announcement at every start about an available update, which has been popping at them all for several years :-)

[walt.farrell]

4 hours ago, Pšenda said:

Regardless of the fact that they would have to be desperate from the announcement at every start about an available update, which has been popping at them all for several years 🙂

The installation, distribution, and update procedures are different for volume purchasers of the Affinity software. And one difference may be that the update prompt does not appear (though I'm ust guessing about that aspect of it).

[Granddaddy]

19 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

We do not encounter this restriction from another time with software such as Microsoft Office and other similar software. For example, it is perfectly possible to load a Word 2003 document into Word 2019, or a Word 2019 document into Word 2007.

Enlarging on this point, as an aging dinosaur I am still proudly and happily and regularly using Microsoft Office 2000.

Microsoft provides the free Office Compatibility Pack that enables older versions of Office (like my 20-year-old version) to open documents created by any later version of Office. I have no problem opening Office files created by my grandchildren with their most recent version of Office. Granted not all features of the later Office versions can be translated into the older software, but that has never been a problem even with complex Excel worksheets. 

I do not participate in Affinity beta testing because Serif warns us the file format may change at any time and any work created with the beta may become unusable in the official release. Affinity's platform and goals seem to stand on shifting foundations,  so I heed their warnings. They have admitted to changing the APhoto format at the last moment before release of a new version to accommodate unexpected changes in the APub format. Just using the commercial version of APhoto is enough of a beta experience for me.

[Pšenda]

50 minutes ago, Granddaddy said:

Microsoft provides the free Office Compatibility Pack

Yes, forward compatibility is made possible by an add-on that turns the new format into the old one that the old application can handle.
However, this does not mean that the new format can be loaded directly by the old application - which the OP requires, which would stop its development and add new functionalities and features.
Unfortunately, Serif has chosen a file format that does not allow for easy forward compatibility. MS solved this by switching from doc (proprietary data format) to docx (compressed xml).

P.S. So it shouldn't be a problem for Serif (or someone else) to create a similar add-on / tool that will transform the new format into the old one.

[AlainP]

This could be said for almost every software that exist, or even OS. I wonder why someone does not upgrade to a newer version when it's free? Why keep using old versions of something when the new one is faster, has more features, take one minute to install is completely free? Why did we move from Win 95 then Win 98 to Windows 10... MS-DOS was working well and I liked so much using Lotus 123 and dBase...

 

[Fixx]

As Affinity products are new also the file format is developing a lot between releases. It is not possible to save new content within old format. Updating Affinity apps is easy and as functionality is better with each update users should use newest release always. For most users this is not a problem.

Although, when version 2.0 is released it might make sense to add Save as version 1.9 (or even 1.8). Some features may disappear from the files that way though.

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, Fixx said:

It is not possible to save new content within old format.

It is possible, but the file format must be prepared for that from the beginning.

[wonderings]

I think this is a bad idea for anyone trying to collaborate. If you really want thinks to work well and efficient you should be on the same version. Seems like you are asking for issues not being on the same version. Microsoft Office products are an entirely different beast than programs like publisher, designer, and photo or their Adobe equivalents. I was curious if Indesign 2019 could open an Indesign 2020 file. Indesign 2019 can do it but has a bit warning first, then has to run a conversion to get it to open with the older version. This would not inspire a lot of confidence in me knowing elements could change and could be missed if dealing with larger multi page files. 

If collaboration is a must then you should be using the same version. That being said it would be nice to have the ability to convert to use for an older version simply for having the option if needed. I think the last time I ran into this sort of issue was before Adobe CS/CC and everyone print shop and designer were holding onto different versions of the CS (C4, C5, C6). This has been fixed with Adobe CC as everyone is on the same version and no reason to not be on the same version. 

[Old Bruce]

To all who are requesting this compatibility:  There is a new blend mode in the latest betas (1.9.0.x) called Divide. How would that get rendered in the 1.8.x versions?

[wonderings]

1 hour ago, Old Bruce said:

To all who are requesting this compatibility:  There is a new blend mode in the latest betas (1.9.0.x) called Divide. How would that get rendered in the 1.8.x versions?

That is the issue and why it is not a good idea to open things created in a newer versions. Newer versions usually mean added features. So what happens when those features are not in the older version you are opening it with? It may open but you are getting a file that is not how it was created thus creating more problems and headaches.  

[garrettm30]

4 hours ago, wonderings said:

Microsoft Office products are an entirely different beast

To add to that, one of the big differences is that Office is a mature product. It had already been around for 16 years when the current format (.docx, etc.) was released. Even with the changes made since that time, I would venture a guess that much of the changes would not require a format change.