A Growing Lack of Confidence

[Guest]

I've been using Affinity products to varying degrees since their release(s), and for the most part I was pleased with the direction the products were taking. Never quite enough to abandon Adobe, but I had hoped that one day soon that day/option would become obvious. Sadly, over the last year my confidence in Serif with regards to the Affinity suite of products has been on the decline. No roadmap is provided for their products. Bugs and feature requests continue to mount—some dating back years—and if the forums are anything to go by (I'm not using the Affinity Suite much anymore) the recent 1.9 and 1.10 releases seem to have been fraught with issues (incl. crashes, corrupted files, open/save issues, etc) for many users.

This has really led me to question whether or not I really want to trust my work to these applications and (proprietary) file formats. Yes, the specific breaking crashes/issues will likely be fixed in a point release. And yes, if your file won't open or is corrupted you can send it to Serif and they will try to fix it for you. But as lovely as these gestures are, they don't really do much to instil confidence in these applications (and Serif) going forward.

The 1.10 release was supposed to be about performance and creating a stable base from which to build upon going forward. As it stands, I (like many folks) aren't seeing these performance boosts in 1.10 (2020 MBP, 32GB, i7), and the number of posts about apps crashing, not starting, not opening/saving files, etc doesn't imply a stable base exists either. Add to that Serif's policy of not providing any future development plans (ie. a roadmap) and I have absolutely zero idea of what the future holds for the Affinity Suite. I can only go by what I see today, and from my perspective what I see only adds to that growing lack of confidence.

[NotMyFault]

I fully share the frustration.

I will continue to use the Affinity suite, based on heavy investment of my time to master the product and find efficient workflows. Never the less, i think it is high time that someone at Affinity like a product owner / product manager really starts to communicate with the active user base (forum users), hear their voice about priorities, and provide a raw roadmap how to overcome the painful issues. 
 

Still convinced that all Affinity staff is really working hard, never the less I‘m deeply dissatisfied with Affinity as a company regarding their autistic behavior and complete ignorance to well documented user feedback.

 

 

[NotMyFault]

My top priority are

1. No data loss. Save always possible, no corrupt files.
2. QA to ensure regression tests performed (automatically) before user beta
3. Solving crash issues 
4. Functional issues (nested alpha layers not working)
5. Rendering issues 
6. Performance improvements
7. Adding new functionality based on user feedback
8. Adding new functionality from Affinity backlog

Why not let forum vote for most needed new function? To name a few requested since years:

• Set your own defaults for all UI defaults (current layer / & below)
• show current brush
• crop to selection
• Edit alpha channel, copy/paste channels 
• More control over alpha channel during Import / Export 
• Palettized file formats import / export
• export history as video
• Shape builder

[wonderings]

I think trying to have user input on direction can lead you all over the place. Not all users are active or even on the forums. I am sure they have a road map and direction they are planning that they have strategized about. You are never going to please everyone, what is important for some is not important to others. Others may need more work to impliment or are not realistic. So you have a bunch of people vote for what they want, they win the vote but then Affinity vetos it as not being feasible yet and you are right back where you started with some people not being happy. 

I rarely use the Affinity software, I bought it to test and see what is out there against Adobe (which I use professionally and really like). The resources at Affinity pale in comparison to Adobe or many other software developers. Expecting the same level of software as Adobe's but for a fraction of the cost is not realistic. Not saying they should not be trying to put out the best, bug free, software they can, they just have limitations with their few hundred staff compared to the 10's of thousands at Adobe.  

[NotMyFault]

Agree mostly.

When you have limited resources you must prioritize.

I cannot understand that Affinity prioritizes new features over crash fixing and functional issues. And i don’t think of OpenCL related bugs, im thinking of crash by unchecked user input, functionality not reached.

And when users request a functionality for years, Affinity should simply provide a clear statement (e.g. no support for Linux next x years) instead of ignoring the discussion completely. 

[wonderings]

1 hour ago, NotMyFault said:

Agree mostly.

When you have limited resources you must prioritize.

I cannot understand that Affinity prioritizes new features over crash fixing and functional issues. And i don’t think of OpenCL related bugs, im thinking of crash by unchecked user input, functionality not reached.

And when users request a functionality for years, Affinity should simply provide a clear statement (e.g. no support for Linux next x years) instead of ignoring the discussion completely. 

It may not be as simple fixing the issues right now, I am sure they would be working on it otherwise word would get around that the software is unstable and would ultimately kill the business. It is obviously not happening fast enough for some.

I don't think Affinity giving a clear statement would really help anything, people still go on and on about why they should do this or that. The Linux thread is a great example, it has been said from Affinity they are not looking to develop for Linux at the moment but still it goes on.

[Arceom]

I'm feeling the same frustration and disappointment. I've been using each Affinity app for my work since they released on windows (and also recommending them very vocally to my peers). I was ok with having a little bit of friction product of not using the industry standards and missing some quality of life features in exchange for speed, stability and not having to rent my tools. But something has been happening to the Affinity suite during the last year, each release makes the software a little bit slower and unstable each time. As things stand today; I'm willing to wait one more year (assuming performance doesn't become worse) to see performance restored and new big features. Otherwise I will just go back to Adobe, as much as I dislike them, the pros-to-cons ratio of Affinity is getting worse and the software is becoming not worth it for professional work.

[NotMyFault]

17 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Affinity could not build an autosave with version function into their apps,

This could further reduce the pain, but not fully.

Photo already has two safety nets included - 1000 step history and auto-safe in case of crash. But this does not help in case of file corruption, or app hangs (not crashing).

I frequently start with 24 Mpixel 20-25 Mbyte RAW files, and after a few edits must deal with 1000 Mbyte afphoto files - saved without history, RGB/16. This is another unsolvable issue- the massive memory bloat of the file format. Load and store times are excessive- Photo uses a single core and a fraction of SSD IO Performance. 

The only way to solve this file corruption issue to make the file format robust, and especially ensure that every file what has been stored is actually sane and not corrupt. Could mean reading load file immediately after store (in separate sandbox to avoid collateral damage to open document) and giving option to save open document in other more robust format.

this means more a sequence of edit steps similar to a database log, usable for recovery (and manual corrections)

[wtrmlnjuc]

A lack of a roadmap (before anyone asks, I know why it was removed) or a priority list (what I’d prefer) does not give clear communication to anyone on the outside looking in. There’s no reasoning as to why certain features are/aren’t made, what milestones to get to certain features, why development seems slow, etc. There’s a lot of “We’re listening!” but not a lot of “Here’s what we’re up to/no longer up to and why.” So much of communication is just about being transparent.

I don’t care if they veto some popular request so long as we’re not left guessing as to why. And without a central place to discuss this (like a roadmap of sorts – you don’t even need to give out dates!) the same requests are going to keep popping up. 

[DragonWhimsy]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:07 PM, wtrmlnjuc said:

A lack of a roadmap (before anyone asks, I know why it was removed) or a priority list (what I’d prefer) does not give clear communication to anyone on the outside looking in. There’s no reasoning as to why certain features are/aren’t made, what milestones to get to certain features, why development seems slow, etc. There’s a lot of “We’re listening!” but not a lot of “Here’s what we’re up to/no longer up to and why.” So much of communication is just about being transparent.

I don’t care if they veto some popular request so long as we’re not left guessing as to why. And without a central place to discuss this (like a roadmap of sorts – you don’t even need to give out dates!) the same requests are going to keep popping up. 

I have to agree with this. For example let's take a super simple feature. Some really low hanging fruit. Just showing brush names in the brush panel. This functionality is already in the IPad versions. It should be really easy for them to add it to the desktop versions. But nothing. Is it because they intend to do a major revamp of the brush panel and so don't want to bother fixing the old one? Is it because they think it will look cluttered? Some other reason? We don't know. They could probably fix this super annoying thing over the course of an afternoon but instead it's just left the way it's always been and using brushes in affinity software kinda sucks as a result. And what's worse we have no dialog as to why it's that way.

You can take that example and use it for every other feature or quality of life addition. 

I think tackling the IPad apps and Affinity Publisher have really reduced the momentum Affinity had when it was just Designer and Photo on desktop. I'm guessing they know that too and have delayed the DAM app to work on 2.0. At least I hope so. 

It'd be nice if they told us though. And maybe started previewing some features. 

My theory is everything is quiet because they want to go big with Affinity 2.0 and so until we get close to it's release we can expect a quiet time. 

 

[DieterW]

I must admit I share all those concerns. I am not a professional though and for me Affinity is still the best option. However, some years ago, to me Affinity was like a shining star by taking known functions, rethink them from scratch, and in many examples made them better, more intuitive, more consistent. It cannot be overlooked that this has changed. It somehow seems to me that product management changed some time ago as such things in the end depend on very few people with outstanding analytical and conceptual capabilities. However, to me it is also clear that Serif has an enormous lack of resources since quite some time now. Sometimes I think I can feel the principle willingness paired with the typical frustration due to being overloaded too long, and not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. So, it might well be that the current situation is caused solely by this fact. If this is really the reason I can say for my part that I would accept a higher price for sure, if this would lead to more development resources.

[wonderings]

I think you buy software for what it can do at the moment of release, if your intent when buying something and hoping they will continue to add and give you more then you are always taking a gamble. Yes it is common to get updates, but not a requirement. If you bought the software knowing what it does and does not then you should still either be happy it lets you achieve what you want or you took the risk that they would give you features and it has not paid off. Not sure how anyone can really complain about the software and lack of development or features. Unless these were promised to be added at launch and then never delivered I think it is just people grumbling and wanting more more more for less less less. I am amazed at the features they did add to V1 as I thought things like PDF passthrough and variable data would be features held out for V2 to give reason to pay for the update. 

[PaoloT]

For those asking aloud for a roadmap from Serif: wouldn't it be better if they openly disclose the roadmap of their own business, so that Serif can see if the goals are matching?

Paolo

 

[wonderings]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:13 AM, LondonSquirrel said:

It would lead to endless comments about why xyz and abc features are not on the roadmap and that they should be, and that other features on the roadmap are 'not necessary'. In other words we would probably not be any better off.

100% correct. I am guilty of it myself. There is no benefit to this and would only cause more people get upset and comment giving their opinion on how Serif should be running their multi million dollar company. 

[wtrmlnjuc]

To add to my previous comment, I don’t like paying for Adobe but please, take a look at their apps’ uservoice forums. They have a section for active-indevelopment features. They never give dates, only a heads up to say, “Hey we have this feature in dev now.” or, “What is your workflow like?” That’s all that’s needed. 

 

[wonderings]

4 hours ago, wtrmlnjuc said:

To add to my previous comment, I don’t like paying for Adobe but please, take a look at their apps’ uservoice forums. They have a section for active-indevelopment features. They never give dates, only a heads up to say, “Hey we have this feature in dev now.” or, “What is your workflow like?” That’s all that’s needed. 

 

It can be interesting to see what they are working on, but it is by no means anything anyone needs to know. Don't buy software based on the hope it might do what you want in the future, buy for what it can do now. There is already a place for suggestions. 

[Alfred]

On 9/16/2021 at 11:18 AM, PaoloT said:

For those asking aloud for a roadmap from Serif: wouldn't it be better if they openly disclose the roadmap of their own business, so that Serif can see if the goals are matching?

Paolo

 

 

On 9/16/2021 at 3:13 PM, LondonSquirrel said:

It would lead to endless comments about why xyz and abc features are not on the roadmap and that they should be, and that other features on the roadmap are 'not necessary'. In other words we would probably not be any better off.

I think you misread Paolo’s comment! He’s suggesting that instead of trying to persuade Serif to return to publishing their roadmap (which they eventually hid because it had exactly the effect you describe) the complainers should publish their own companies’ roadmaps for Serif to scrutinize.

[PaoloT]

2 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

it would lead to recriminations: but we posted our roadmap here and Serif didn't do anything about it, so what's the point posting here.

…and that's the illuminating paradox: if people/companies don't like publishing their roadmap, because it's something they have to manage themselves, it seems likely that Serif could prefer not to publish their, and care to their business themselves.

Paolo

 

[wonderings]

5 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

At the same time, it would be good to have some idea about what Serif is actually working on.

 

I don't think it would be good to have some idea about what they are working on. You may like to know, I am sure we would all be curious, but it is not "good". Just serves peoples curiosity without any purpose and benefit to the user. 

[CM0]

Many companies have open feature and bug tracking where the community interact with development and vote up requests.  I'm an engineer that works in such a company.  Without this interaction it is difficult to know what is the correct priorities from simply a user forum.

If we can't tell what should be the priorities by looking at this forum, then neither can Serif.

Yes, everybody will not agree with a chosen roadmap etc, but having no interaction is worse.  A lack of a roadmap and/or lack of communication with the community simply leads to lack of confidence especially when combined with a descending trend in fixes/features/updates. 

[cyberlizard]

I am pretty certain that Affinity Photo and Designer are their biggest applications in that order when it comes to sales with Publisher coming in third.  I have gone back to the dark side.  I had wanted very much to make the switch but Publisher holds me back... in three words, "footnotes and endnotes".

There we are.

p.s. couldn't agree more about the lack of transparency.  Even Scribus is more transparent than Affinity when it comes to being open (no pun intended).

[wonderings]

17 hours ago, cyberlizard said:

I am pretty certain that Affinity Photo and Designer are their biggest applications in that order when it comes to sales with Publisher coming in third.  I have gone back to the dark side.  I had wanted very much to make the switch but Publisher holds me back... in three words, "footnotes and endnotes".

There we are.

p.s. couldn't agree more about the lack of transparency.  Even Scribus is more transparent than Affinity when it comes to being open (no pun intended).

What would change about Photo and Designer if you knew exactly what they were working on? Again would you buy software now with the hopes of features that may come in a months time, in a years time? 

Scribus and Serif are not really the same thing. One is free and open source, the other costs and is not open source. There is no pressure with free software, at least not the same as there is with people paying and complaining they deserve more for their money. Affinity is not open source and I don't believe they have made any attempts at being open, their format is pretty locked down to Affinity apps only. 

[wonderings]

16 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

If you're talking about total sales, Publisher is probably behind Photo and Designer because it was released much later. I would also expect Photo to be more popular than the other apps, as (I'm pretty sure) there are more people who need to edit photos, than there are who are involved in (mainly) vector design or publishing.

Think you might want to redirect the quote to the original person who said that, I was just quoting them and replying. 

[PaulEC]

18 hours ago, cyberlizard said:

I am pretty certain that Affinity Photo and Designer are their biggest applications in that order when it comes to sales with Publisher coming in third.

If you're talking about total sales, Publisher is probably behind Photo and Designer because it was released much later. I would also expect Photo to be more popular than the other apps, as (I'm pretty sure) there are more people who need to edit photos, than there are who are involved in (mainly) vector design or publishing.

[CM0]

6 hours ago, wonderings said:

What would change about Photo and Designer if you knew exactly what they were working on? Again would you buy software now with the hopes of features that may come in a months time, in a years time? 

Scribus and Serif are not really the same thing. One is free and open source, the other costs and is not open source. There is no pressure with free software, at least not the same as there is with people paying and complaining they deserve more for their money. Affinity is not open source and I don't believe they have made any attempts at being open, their format is pretty locked down to Affinity apps only. 

It is not a call for Affinity being open source.  It is about open transparent development with the community.  This isn't just about benefit to the community, but about benefit to Affinity as well.  Many companies have more open transparent development and are not open source.  Take a look at Vector Styler as an example of a competitor.

The companies I've worked for are closed source, yet they still have open feature and defect tracking in which the the company engages with the community for better understanding of not only priorities, but refinement of feature requests.  Also, there are often invitations from selected customers to join round table discussions to be involved with future development and solicit feedback.  I'm not proposing Affinity has to take on exactly any of these methods.  I'm simply proposing Affinity finds a method to be more open by a method of their own choosing.  Why? because I have bought into many products in the past where the rate of development declines as a precursor to that product essentially going into a long slow death spiral.

As far as buying software, it is about what competing software I might not buy or heavily invest into.  Furthermore, the most important aspect is that when users feel confident in a product they voluntarily promote it.