I'm trying to understand the essence of Affinity.

[Snapseed]

13 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

• Photos is a joke app - if it didn't have an Apple logo it would get 1 or 2 out of 5 stars on the App store.
• Motion is very good for the money.
• There has been barely any development on FCP for years - it has completely plateaued. All it gets is some occasional new file formats.

Your point about a public roadmap has been argued about for ages. The A,B,C features would descend very quickly into who shouts loudest. 

It is a wholly dumbed down software app for quick fixes for social media. My own view is that Apple should have continued to develop both iPhoto and Aperture instead (they have always had the money to do this). These days, if you want to do any form of more involved photo manipulation/editing, you now have to go third party apps.

[v_kyr]

7 hours ago, Snapseed said:

... My own view is that Apple should have continued to develop both iPhoto and Aperture instead (they have always had the money to do this).

Apple's ways are sometimes unfathomable, too. - The former guy behind Apple's Photo Apps group (Nik Bhatt) afterwards founded Gentleman Coders and developed Raw Power as a sort of Aperture replacement.

[Cuando]

Absolutely agree with everything Joschi stated. I think he is the voice of many Affinity users.

[wonderings]

19 hours ago, Joschi said:

Of course not! Bitching is a waste of time (this I agree with you on this!) 

Here is what I would do instead:
If a feature I want is not on a roadmap, then I would look for an alternative on the market that can offer me exactly this feature that I need for my work in order to be able to do my job (be it as a complimentary tool to affinity or other apps)!

That's how I've always done it, precisely because such a roadmap helped me save time and calculate what I can use in the meantime to counteract these bottlenecks.

Yes, there will always be people who complain, but there are many sensible people who think ahead of time and take this as an opportunity to look for solutions until the problem is solved. If you only look at people who complain, then I understand why you might not like a public roadmap. Or, you can look instead at people who will not complain, find solutions and will compliment the team as soon as a new feature has been added to the software

I don't look at people who complain. I look for transparency, communication and solutions that help me.
As soon as Affinity introduces new features that I don't need, but that other people think are great (and need), then I'm happy for those people, too
 

It seems that people get very entitled when it comes to software, like they are owed complete transparency from the software company. Is the expected anywhere else? Am I at my mechanic wanting to know where they are heading and how it will make my life better? Or at McDonalds wanting to know and have direct input on the next burger? 

I would question why you would ever buy software that does not do what you want it to do on release. If what I need is not there then I won't buy the software. It is a pretty simple thing. So many things can change for a company in this business and things can turn on a dime which would have the users who took the roadmap as a promise even more upset if direction was changed and they did not continue on with their road map. The software is a tool, it lets me make a living, pay for my house, car, motorcycle, food and everything else. I would never buy a drill that could only use 1 kind of drill bit with expectations that they would soon be able to use other bits. I would wait till it does what I need or buy the one that does. 

 

[Joschi]

9 minutes ago, wonderings said:

It seems that people get very entitled when it comes to software, like they are owed complete transparency from the software company. Is the expected anywhere else? Am I at my mechanic wanting to know where they are heading and how it will make my life better? Or at McDonalds wanting to know and have direct input on the next burger? 

I would question why you would ever buy software that does not do what you want it to do on release. If what I need is not there then I won't buy the software. It is a pretty simple thing. So many things can change for a company in this business and things can turn on a dime which would have the users who took the roadmap as a promise even more upset if direction was changed and they did not continue on with their road map. The software is a tool, it lets me make a living, pay for my house, car, motorcycle, food and everything else. I would never buy a drill that could only use 1 kind of drill bit with expectations that they would soon be able to use other bits. I would wait till it does what I need or buy the one that does. 

 

It seems to me that some people here have the idea, that professional studios or freelancers basically only use programs that have all the features they need.
But that's not how it works in reality.

Fact is: There is no program that can handle all the tasks you need to complete your jobs.

Then you go with the strategy of buying as many programs (or services) that cover the necessary needs that are needed for the job. So several programs, but only as many as you really need (the cost-benefit factors must be taken into account, too).

Now, if you have several options to choose from: Let's assume option A on the one hand, with a program that is available for a one-time purchase and covers 80% of all functions that you need for work. And on the other side, option B, with a program that has to be subscribed monthly for a high price, but covers 90% of all functions.

Now you have to calculate how to compensate for the remaining needs. Let's assume again that for both options there is a provider on the market that offers the remaining functions via a plug-in or standalone software and is compatible with both options.
Which option do you choose? Of course, the option that can offer the best cost-benefit factor in the long run.

If people here now claim: "I only buy a program that covers all my features that I need",
then I wonder if they use any programs at all on a professional basis.

There is no software that can do everything.

But that's what my post was about:
The question of Affinity's long-term planning and direction.

If someone asks: "Why make a fuss about it? If a program has what you need, then buy it, if not don't buy it!", then it shows that this person has never heard of long-term planning and calculation.

This is not how the business world works.
If someone rejects a program because it doesn't have a certain feature, but meets all the other requirements, he is not thinking economically and logically. Because there is no such thing as a program that covers everything. But that is exactly why the question of enterprise customers to software companies regarding long-term planning and development phase is important. Do you seriously believe that companies can change their entire pipeline from one month to the next (just because a cheaper alternative suddenly has a feature that could be useful for work)? There are always long-term contracts and licenses negotiated.

Not everyone uses Affinity as a hobby or for occasional jobs. Others would like to use it as a long-term professional tool in the future. And there's a lot more to it than just asking: Does it have all the features I need, or not?

For some people it might work, who only act on the principle of only buying something, that can meet all their requirements.
However, there are many others here who think the same way I do, and don't consider that a realistic and healthy attitude. If you invest a lot of time and money in programs and processes, you also want to know whether it is economically worthwhile to rely on them in the long term. And communication is important because it can give customers security when companies communicate their long-term plans to their customers.

It's not about arguing about which features need to be done first or are more important. It's about showing the customers that you have a plan and that the customers can understand those plans and feel like they are being guided through the process.

[iuli]

Erased.

[iuli]

Erased.

[Joschi]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So... Serif publishes a roadmap with A, B, C, and D features.

The feature you want most is not on that roadmap. What then? In the forums there will be people saying that A and B are not important (meaning not important to them). Other people will say A and B are absolutely essential. And so on.

I've read this thread thoroughly (and several others along the same lines previously). 

When @MikeW wrote 'rethinking the list and rectifying', he means changing the roadmap. And how would that be decided? Please don't answer - that too has been discussed over and over, without resolution.

Why are you too focused on people who might or will complain (for sure)? Your only argument is: "People have complained in the past, and we have discussed it many times over, therefore a public roadmap is useless!" -> This is a weak argument in my eyes!

Of course a Roadmap is not a wish concert. Why Do you care, if someone's feature request is not on a roadmap (especially someone, who wants a public roadmap)? You are automatically assuming, that people will react like kids if they do not get what they want! You think it's impossible to find out what should be on the roadmap, if customers are involved. Well, look at all the other companies who have public roadmaps (and those customers are involved in the process)! There are many customers who can be understanding. Of course it's not easy to find out, what exactly has a higher priority! But it's doable, if we can create an environment where such things can be discussed in a friendly and constructive manner. After all, there are ways how to keep this negative energy to a minimum level. Other companies do that, in which certain specifications are given before you can publish your opinion or feature request. Or that users first have to prove their knowledge of programs through useful contributions in the community before they are allowed to participate in the public roadmap discussion.

There are many ways to manage the negativity in a discussion to an absolute minimum.

26 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

While I might like to know what is coming down the road from Serif (and when), it doesn't do me much good now. I cannot use that future functionality today. 

On the contrary! This information can help you look for other complementary alternatives to compensate for the tools you don't have in your main Software. Especially if the software can meet all other requirements, then you have the security that what you need is there and you don't run the risk of overstretching yourself financially.

Just imagine, if you have not only invested in Affinity Apps, but also other apps that a part of your workflow, then of course you are interested in maintaining compatibility between your programs.

If you don't have any information about the public roadmap now (and what has been publicly discussed between the developers and customers) and it turns out that new features have been added, but the code behind the features has been changed so that compatibility or working with your other programs is no longer guaranteed, then you'll look like an idiot afterwards, because you couldn't prepare for it in a timely manner.

At that point at the latest, you will have wished for a public roadmap (because a lot of time and money was lost).

It still seems to me that you do not want to understand the advantages and benefits of a public roadmap. You're too busy worrying that the negative comments will ruin everything.

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

...

When @MikeW wrote 'rethinking the list and rectifying', he means changing the roadmap. And how would that be decided? Please don't answer - that too has been discussed over and over, without resolution. ...

No, sorry for not being clear.

What I was attempting to write was nothing more than Serif itself wrote about in the "roadmap" thread. That is, when people complained that the list wasn't being followed in the order it was written, Serif staff explained "feature X" needed done first before "feature B." Ordering the list would have alleviated/eliminated that pain-point. When people complained that it was taking a long time to get to "feature G," having some sort of timing expectation for list items would have alleviated/eliminated that pain-point.

Feature Y, if not even on the list, will always cause some people to complain that it should have been included. That too can be dealt with by having greater transparency with how items are included/excluded from being added. As mentioned before, consulting with professionals who are doing work in other applications before planning, during development, and after features are included would have been a good thing. For an instance, how many professionals would have been onboard with how ADesigner/APub handles color management? I know of precisely zero professionals that think the way Serif is handling color management is a good thing. Do you?

No list/roadmap ever makes everyone happy. How user expectations/desires are dealt with does matter.

[Sam Neil]

Great post! 

[MikeW]

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

For colour management and other oddities the 'Serif way'? I agree with what you are saying. I find some things done the Serif way to be odd.

But what you are again getting round to with the 'public roadmap' is not a roadmap at all. You yourself refer to 'consulting with professionals'. What you want is a discussion between Serif and (somehow chosen/elected/self-elected) 'professionals' from the Serif user base. And these select group of 'professionals' acting like some priesthood above the great unwashed and unknowing masses would decide what is right for everyone else. What happens if you are not in this priesthood, and another professional has different ideas to you about colour management?

I think you have fallen into a fallacy here. Some people when saying 'users' are making an appeal to the masses, because what they really mean is 'me'. They do not speak for all users. We can see the differences in numerous threads about how one person's 'users' does not equal another person's 'users', thus negating the whole idea that users speak with one voice or have one view. Your fallacy comes about with your call for 'consulting with professionals'. It's a narrower version of 'users'. Professionals do not all speak with one voice.

Let's take your colour management example a bit further. Let's say that Serif consults with some 'professionals' and they have a particular view about how this should be implemented. What happens if it does not conform to your wishes? 

You agree re color management (being "odd"), yet later write that consulting with "professionals" could/may result in, what? A worse implementation?

Corel went through several iterations revamping how color was handled over about 4 versions. They consulted with several/many professionals during that time. This process resulted in a fairly robust implementation. While I believe Corel could have taken it further, the results are good. Oh, I wasn't consulted.

What would be the opposite? Believing all knowledge is in-house? We have the proof of this being, well, poorly implemented.

I do not believe I would have been the right person, with the exception of from a user's needs perspective. But I do not believe I mean "me" in the sense you are ascribing to me. I could care less if Serif ever contacted me. I have zero delusions of the grandeur you are ascribing to myself. It's a strawman argument you are making.

[MikeW]

Oh, re color management. The present manner of color management is worse than "odd." It's pretty unusable from a single-source, many output intents perspective. Which is why this isn't done that way in ID/QXP, etc. (Which, being a layout person is really where my care/concern lies.)

[MikeW]

1 minute ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So about 4 times they got it wrong?

Oh, geez. You're just being argumentative for its own sake. It took that long to make all the underlying fundamental changes and full implementation.

Just how long would it take Serif to rectify its color management? How many versions/iterations would be required? Fundamental changes do not, cannot, happen over night. Everything from display to output would be affected.

[wonderings]

2 hours ago, iuli said:

@wonderings

“It seems that people get very entitled when it comes to software”

People are getting “entitled” by giving feedback in a sub-forum called “Feedback for the Affinity Suite of Products”? That’s not a very rich argument, in my opinion.

“would have the users who took the roadmap as a promise even more upset”

With all due respects, but I think that’s not the best argument either. I also think that’s why these companies do public roadmaps in the first place — to connect with their user base, to identify essential features for future release and to deliver them (on time). 

Roadmaps SHOULD definitely act as a promise. That’s their reason to exist. Take Procreate roadmaps as an example, which I use since the very beginning (we were drawing with fingers then). If they said they have something planned (usually based on users’ input), they’ll make it available. That’s why Savage evolved a rudimentary app into the artistic industry standard. Why would you even put a feature on a roadmap if you’re not certain you will deliver it as planned?

“If what I need is not there then I won't buy the software”

I don’t think  this is Serif’s official stance. People should buy Affinity software even if it lacks one or another feature, which will come sometimes in the future, and for which are (probably) good workarounds already. I think their stance is completely different, even opposite: they are advertising their products as photoshop/illustrator/indesign replacements —

https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/

 from their official site, Affinity Designer is advertise as being “best in class for creating concept art, print projects, logos, icons, UI designs”, so of course people after purchasing will have high expectations. Best in class, that’s a big promise, and definitely is among the very best. But they lack true vector brushes, for instance, and instead we have to use raster brushes applied to vector curves, which are virtually useless for those of us working with vectors for laser-cutting (but which are fabulous for vector illustration).

Are we going to have true vectors in Affinity Designer? Of course we will, I have no doubts about it. I  bought the software regardless of not having true vector brushes, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want true vector brushes in the future. I have to rely of other software to do the job done — the lack of it is not going to stop me from purchasing Affinity Designer 2.0 either.

Kind regards!

The entitlement comes from the request over and over for transparency in how the company operates. It has answered this question before and constantly people think they should be able to see everything the company is working on. This is very different then feedback for how the software works, suggestions for improvements, glitches, etc. The descriptive line for the feedback sections is "Discussions about features that you think will make Affinity even better. Any suggestions about the software go in these forums" Now maybe I interpret it differently then you, I do not read that as requests or suggestions for how the company operates and interacts with the user base.

I think any company should be free to alter their road map and not have people screaming at them because they changed course. This is of course a reason against road maps as a road map is viewed as promises. Who knows what they come up with when working on these things that may cause problems or have them put it on the back burner till some other things get sorted first. 

Very Best is subjective and everyone does it. The 5 pizza places in my town all say they are the best in town. Some here will say Affinity is best and can happily replace Adobe with it, personally I could not and prefer Adobe presently. You can try out a demo, and try those basic things. I do not jump to new software anymore, Adobe is great value for the money so not something I have to deal with but when I switched our company over from Quark to Indesign I did some serious testing of the most basic required functions in the new software before jumping ship, and even then we ran both in tandem as moved over to Indesign. I would operate the same way if we switched over to Serif, I would expect people to work almost exclusively in the Affinity apps, only going to Adobe if something could not be done or to convert files. This forces the user to get comfortable with a new system and also maintains the safety net of having what you know works already if you get stuck on something in the new software. You learn pretty quick the pros and cons of both sides of the fence. 

 

[Old Bruce]

Affinity had a release date for Publisher that was at least three years earlier than the actual release date. Serif could come out with a road map saying "we are working on RTL text for release next year. Then they miss it. Going to be a hell of a lot of very upset customers.

[Sam Neil]

22 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

Here is what I do:

If a feature I need is not in the application I don't buy that application.

A map is not the terrain. In other words if a feature I need is on the roadmap it is not in the application, and may not be placed in the application in my lifetime. But it will be on the roadmap long after I am gone. 

But Bruce a road map has to be maintained and kept up-to-date. If one feature cannot be implemented then you remove it. Simple as that. 

[MikeW]

6 minutes ago, Sam Neil said:

But Bruce a road map has to be maintained and kept up-to-date. If one feature cannot be implemented then you remove it. Simple as that. 

I don't think removal is a good idea. Pushing it back with a brief statement why is sufficient. 

In the case of OB's rtl text, stating the feature is more difficult to implement in Serif's text engine than originally thought and a change to indefinite but working on it would be nice. Then once foundational changes have been implemented to the text engine, the timing could be updated. 

[PaulEC]

13 minutes ago, Sam Neil said:

But Bruce a road map has to be maintained and kept up-to-date. If one feature cannot be implemented then you remove it. Simple as that. 

Then the people who have already bought it, expecting the feature that has now been removed, get upset and start complaining that they bought it for that feature which is now no longer on the roadmap! 

[Sam Neil]

8 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I don't think removal is a good idea. Pushing it back with a brief statement why is sufficient. 

In the case of OB's rtl text, stating the feature is more difficult to implement in Serif's text engine than originally thought and a change to indefinite but working on it would be nice. Then once foundational changes have been implemented to the text engine, the timing could be updated. 

Good points. I am one of those desperately wanting and needing RTL support for a major projects and lord knows the amount of "mountains" I have moved to get it to work on Publisher/Designer but I know it will not come until version 2 or 3 or 4 of the software so I have given up and using my un-orthodox methods to get the job done as apart for this, Publisher is amazing!

So I have given up on a road map too...

[Sam Neil]

7 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

Then the people who have already bought it, expecting the feature that has now been removed, get upset and start complaining that they bought it for that feature which is now no longer on the roadmap! 

Fair point. I have given up on the road map.

[jmwellborn]

And then there is this. 

 

[iuli]

@jmwellborn

I don’t want to start a never-ending discussion about who is rounder than who, but that “circle” looks far more spherical in Illustrator.

Edit — Poor attempt at a joke based on this topic:

 

[jmwellborn]

7 minutes ago, iuli said:

@jmwellborn

I don’t want to start a never-ending discussion about who is rounder than who, but that “circle” looks far more spherical in Illustrator.

I have no clue who drew that.  Perhaps ancient Egypt used freehand expression?

[wonderings]

5 hours ago, Joschi said:

It seems to me that some people here have the idea, that professional studios or freelancers basically only use programs that have all the features they need.
But that's not how it works in reality.

Fact is: There is no program that can handle all the tasks you need to complete your jobs.

Then you go with the strategy of buying as many programs (or services) that cover the necessary needs that are needed for the job. So several programs, but only as many as you really need (the cost-benefit factors must be taken into account, too).

Now, if you have several options to choose from: Let's assume option A on the one hand, with a program that is available for a one-time purchase and covers 80% of all functions that you need for work. And on the other side, option B, with a program that has to be subscribed monthly for a high price, but covers 90% of all functions.

Now you have to calculate how to compensate for the remaining needs. Let's assume again that for both options there is a provider on the market that offers the remaining functions via a plug-in or standalone software and is compatible with both options.
Which option do you choose? Of course, the option that can offer the best cost-benefit factor in the long run.

If people here now claim: "I only buy a program that covers all my features that I need",
then I wonder if they use any programs at all on a professional basis.

There is no software that can do everything.

But that's what my post was about:
The question of Affinity's long-term planning and direction.

If someone asks: "Why make a fuss about it? If a program has what you need, then buy it, if not don't buy it!", then it shows that this person has never heard of long-term planning and calculation.

This is not how the business world works.
If someone rejects a program because it doesn't have a certain feature, but meets all the other requirements, he is not thinking economically and logically. Because there is no such thing as a program that covers everything. But that is exactly why the question of enterprise customers to software companies regarding long-term planning and development phase is important. Do you seriously believe that companies can change their entire pipeline from one month to the next (just because a cheaper alternative suddenly has a feature that could be useful for work)? There are always long-term contracts and licenses negotiated.

Not everyone uses Affinity as a hobby or for occasional jobs. Others would like to use it as a long-term professional tool in the future. And there's a lot more to it than just asking: Does it have all the features I need, or not?

For some people it might work, who only act on the principle of only buying something, that can meet all their requirements.
However, there are many others here who think the same way I do, and don't consider that a realistic and healthy attitude. If you invest a lot of time and money in programs and processes, you also want to know whether it is economically worthwhile to rely on them in the long term. And communication is important because it can give customers security when companies communicate their long-term plans to their customers.

It's not about arguing about which features need to be done first or are more important. It's about showing the customers that you have a plan and that the customers can understand those plans and feel like they are being guided through the process.

I have no other software I use professionally for page layout, working with vectors and for photos. I use Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop. I have all 3 apps from Affinity I purchased out of curiosity for the first app for app competition I have seen for Adobe, the cheap price tag made that possible as well. Indesign does everything Indesign is supposed to do for me. I am a pro user in the fact that I make my living with Adobe CC as well as some other apps, none of which over lap with Indesign, Illustrator or Photoshop. I have other apps for numbering, imposition, PDF conversion, font management, etc. None of these are things that overlap or any of the 3 apps I use daily have claimed to do or even attempt at doing. I have not had a need to go looking for other software to get my work done, curiosity has me looking to see what is out there but that is a very different thing then needing to find an app to do something I cannot. Everyones needs are different though and I can accept that for some they need more, I will bet that it is not as common as you seem to think it is. 

When you say no software can do everything, what does that mean? Progams are made for specific tests and functions, no one app is going to span over into fields it was never intended to be in. I am not going to map out a trip to the west coast in Photoshop. I don't think that is what you mean, I should hope not as that would be a silly thing. 

I do agree on relying on a company for the long term, I would not want to invest my money into a system that would no longer get updates. It would be fine for a while but eventually it would not work in future OS's along with other issues any aging app can have. Serif has been around a while and they seem to be a solid company. Adobe is obviously the same just on a much larger scale. I would say Adobe is to large to fail at this point.

Again I think it is a unique to software self entitled attitude that you would not use anywhere else. Serif has said they have a road map, they are planning for the future. Your problem is you don't know what they are planning, so you either have to like what you see now and trust that they will continue to improve on it or you should be looking somewhere else. No idea why the customer needs to be guided through the process of the companies game plan. Should they be holding our hands, whispering soothing words into our ears that everything is going to be ok with the software we bought? I think what they have done now is a good indication that they are capable at making quality software and I do not believe it was just dumb luck that got them where they are now. They have a track record that is well respected and have chosen to keep their roadmap private at this stage. They have been clear on this and I don't think people crying out for it will change anything, just like those wanting a Linux version. 

[Alfred]

30 minutes ago, jmwellborn said:

And then there is this. 

Did somebody mention large fonts?