owning affinity photo on windows and ipad doesn't give me a license on mac?

[2timesowner]

i thought owning affinity photo on windows would be cross plattform and also work on mac.
after a bit of searching i discovered that it is only available on the app store.
well, great news, i own it already on ipad, nope, doesn't transfer the license to mac, like some other apps do.
will this change in the future? i'm really not motivated to buy it for a third time...

[R C-R]

Each OS requires a separate purchase, but each can be installed on as many devices of that type as you own or control.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, 2timesowner said:

after a bit of searching i discovered that it is only available on the app store.

Welcome to the Serif Affinity forums.

It is available directly from Serif, too, at https://affinity.store but you still need to purchase another license if you want to use it on your Mac.

This is unlikely to change for version 1.x of the Affinity suite.

[2timesowner]

6 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

It is available directly from Serif

oh, it is?
but why then, what's the reason...
i can't think of any program that does this...

 

[GarryP]

1 hour ago, 2timesowner said:

but why then, what's the reason...

It’s available from Serif because it’s their software.
As Walt said, it’s available from Serif and the App Stores – you choose where you want to buy from.

1 hour ago, 2timesowner said:

i can't think of any program that does this...

What do you mean by that?

[2timesowner]

4 hours ago, GarryP said:

What do you mean by that?

i never bought an program/game that requires me to buy a version for a different OS again. maybe in times before digital downloads, where you bought a cd/dvd...
so far everything that has a mac version just let's me download and install, except affinity photo.

[GarryP]

Thanks for clarifying.
It’s just how it is with the Affinity suite.
I guess someone in Serif ‘ran the numbers’ and this was the way they thought it should be.
Different licencing configurations work best for different people.

[walt.farrell]

It is also worth considering the price of any commercial applications that allow use on multiple OSes for one license purchase. And how often one needs to pay for a new license. The cost of multiple OS support may be built into the cost of a single license, making it significantly more expensive.

Or a license may only cover a limited period of time, for example, "updates for a year". Or they may only allow usage on a limited number of computers, or by a limited number of users.

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, 2timesowner said:

i never bought an program/game that requires me to buy a version for a different OS again.

How many apps have you bought for your iPad that do not require a separate purchase to run on Windows or the Mac OS?

[2timesowner]

8 minutes ago, R C-R said:

How many apps have you bought for your iPad that do not require a separate purchase to run on Windows or the Mac OS?

yes, you are right it's not the standard for ios/ipad apps, but it seems we are in a transition phase where this is becomes more normal.
of course one of them requires touch input and the other one has to work with mouse/keyboard, so this complicates things.
this was a good motivation to finally take the time to check, since it doesn't show me on my mac without searching for the apps.
seems like i only own 2 apps that are on both app stores. moog model 15 doesn't require a second purchase and affinity photo which does.

however for windows/mac/linux it seems standard to offer the program for both platforms. and i could probably find countless programs.

well it's not like i can do much. however, i'm not happy about this and will think twice before buying anything else from serif.
not enough money to buy everything twice, too indecisive to choose a platform.

well, thanks for listening everybody.

[Alfred]

15 minutes ago, 2timesowner said:

not enough money to buy everything twice, too indecisive to choose a platform.

You’re not buying twice, you’re buying once for each platform. A licence for the Mac or Windows version of an Affinity app costs two and a half times as much as a licence for the iPad version: if one licence were enough, no iPad owner would ever purchase a desktop licence even if they only wanted to use the desktop version.

[2timesowner]

5 minutes ago, Alfred said:

You’re not buying twice, you’re buying once for each platform. A licence for the Mac or Windows version of an Affinity app costs two and a half times as much as a licence for the iPad version: if one licence were enough, no iPad owner would ever purchase a desktop licence even if they only wanted to use the desktop version.

why is everybody so fixated on the ipad version?
because it makes a better argument in defense of how serif handles this?

my main gripe is that the windows version doesn't give me a mac version.
please let me know of all the programs that are not mac/windows cross-platform.

 

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, 2timesowner said:

... of course one of them requires touch input and the other one has to work with mouse/keyboard, so this complicates things.

It is much more complicated to develop app versions for both Windows and Macs because there are so many fundamental differences in how they work "under the hood." They use different windowing models, different memory management schemes, different driver abstractions, etc.

This means the costs of developing one version does not cover the costs of developing the other, so one way or another Serif needs to set the purchase price to cover their development costs plus enough profit to keep the doors open. They could charge more for a multi-platform license, & perhaps even more for one that covered more than one or two devices, or they could do what they have done & license each platform individually, with a very generous policy for how many devices of that platform type the license covers.

Their choice means users who do not need or want versions for all three platforms are not subsidizing those who do.

[R C-R]

2 minutes ago, 2timesowner said:

please let me know of all the programs that are not mac/windows cross-platform.

There are many apps that are only available for Windows or Macs but not for both.

But aside from that, consider all the apps that are cross-platform that you have to rent to use because you cannot buy them outright or if you can the perpetual license is very expensive, & those that are cross-platform but strictly limit the total number of devices they can be used on, often to just 2 devices.

[2timesowner]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

There are many apps that are only available for Windows or Macs but not for both.

But aside from that, consider all the apps that are cross-platform that you have to rent to use because you cannot buy them outright or if you can the perpetual license is very expensive, & those that are cross-platform but strictly limit the total number of devices they can be used on, often to just 2 devices.

yes, but i'm talking about the ones that are on both systems.

the reason why i choose affinity photo was of course to get around the software as a service model which i can't see me using, ever.
i think the best way to ensure returning customers is to make it everything as easy and painfree as possible.

now i'm an edge case having both mac and windows, can't think of many people that do, non in my friend circle to be honest.
so the argument i read in this thread a few times that it's expensive to support both platforms is strange since it just widens the potential customer base.
 

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, 2timesowner said:

so the argument i read in this thread a few times that it's expensive to support both platforms is strange since it just widens the potential customer base.

Whether the potential customer base really would be widened significantly by supporting multiple platforms at a single purchase price depends greatly on what that price would be vs. the price(s) for the single platform versions.

Since, as you say, not that many people use both platforms, I think many potential buyers would prefer not having to pay appreciably more for support they will never need or use. So unless the differential is small, the potential customer base would be reduced, not widened.

[2timesowner]

ok, i give up. this is taking up a lot of time.
makes me wonder why there was no one answering something like
"yes, not great. i understand that you expected this, since it is the usual way this is handled. however serif does it differently."
and the slight suspicion that some of you might work for serif.

[R C-R]

A lot of us think the way Serif handles licensing the Affinity apps is much better than charging more for cross-platform licenses or restricting the total number of devices the apps can be installed on at any one time, & many many times better than resorting to a subscription model (which is rapidly becoming the usual way of licensing cross-platform apps).

And no, we do not work for Serif. All Serif employees can be identified by the word "Staff" below their avatars.

[2timesowner]

my apologies then. maybe i was hoping for more understanding...

i agree that all of this is good(or at least not bad). except that it's not cross-platform,
which makes me an unhappy customer.
just never seen something like this.

[R C-R]

I think we all can understand that you are not happy that you would have to pay more to get both the Mac & Windows versions.

But perhaps you can understand that many of us who do not need both would be unhappy if we had to pay more so you could pay less.

[2timesowner]

well i surely don't want it to be more expensive for everybody.
the thing is, i don't understand why i would be.

now thinking about it, maybe the very unusual separation of mac and windows version is because they offer it at the mac app store.
as far as i understand it would be complicated or even impossible to derive a windows version for people that bought it there.
so the separation would make sense in that it would make it equal for everybody, no matter where they bought it.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, 2timesowner said:

so the separation would make sense in that it would make it equal for everybody, no matter where they bought it.

I'm sure that's part of it. But also, as mentioned before, the increased costs associated with developing and supporting for two platforms when the user only purchased for one.

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, 2timesowner said:

well i surely don't want it to be more expensive for everybody.
the thing is, i don't understand why i would be.

The reason is simple: the costs of developing & supporting apps for one platform does not cover the costs of doing the same for the other platform. So either everybody pays for developing & supporting both platforms, resulting in higher purchase prices for everyone, or they just pay separately for whichever one(s) they need, resulting in lower purchase prices for those who do not need both & higher prices for those who do.

IOW, they have chosen a pricing model where buyers pay only for what they need, not for what someone else might.

[2timesowner]

they already developing/supporting both platforms.
it does not get more expensive to do so if they offer both versions.
where does this idea come from? is there an interview where one of the devs states this? i really don't understand...
 

 

[wonderings]

Lots of apps do not give you cross platform licenses. Adobe did not do it till they went with the subscription model. As far as I know Corel and Quark you buy for your OS and license is unique. That all being said buying the app 3 times is still cheaper then buying the other guys apps and if they work for you you are coming out ahead.