Communication and Secrecy at Serif

[loukash]

3 minutes ago, Corgi said:

questions about Serif's short- or long-term plans, or even in some cases questions about existing policies, are greeted with a frustrating silence. 

I'd expect the Serif management being mature enough to have their reasons for being silent on certain topics. As in: not being silent might cause them even more damage in the long run. Long term business strategy is an asset that not everyone needs to know about.

[deeds]

35 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

Having read through (most) of the foregoing, and various other threads, two things strike me:

Firstly that, by jumping through many hoops, and with a lot of extra work (by people who were probably quite busy with other things) it may have been possible to identify most of the “loyal” customers who had previously purchased v1 of the Affinity apps.

Secondly, that, as has been stated several times, the discount given to everyone was the maximum that Serif could offer.

Therefore, having gone to a great deal of trouble, Serif would have given exactly the same discount to the “loyal” customers that these customers have been given anyway! The only difference would be that new customers could be charged more! Now, while this might boost the egos of a minority of the “loyal” customers ( I’m sure most people have no problem with everyone getting the same generous discount) I can’t see any other benefits to anyone! (I suspect that any extra profit Serif made by giving a smaller discount to new customers would be offset against lower sales due to the higher price.) So, Serif do a lot of extra work, when they are already working hard, so that they can keep a small group of customers happy, by charging new customers more for the same product! (Despite the fact that Serif themselves were quite happy to give everyone the same discount.)

The end result: Serif do a lot of extra work. No one is any better off. New customers are worse off. A small group of “entitled” people have their egos boosted because they feel they have been “thanked” for purchasing a product that they wanted to buy anyway.. (No one has to buy it if they don’t want to do so.)

Final thoughts: (I accept I may be in a minority here) Although I have been a Serif customer for many years I don’t feel any need to be “thanked” for buying a product that I want, and choose, to buy. Any discount, loyalty bonus, opening offer, free gift etc they choose to offer is gratefully received (and may affect my decision to make the purchase) but is not considered to be a “right”, just because I have made previous purchases. Serif appears to me to be a fairly successful company, not a charity, or a struggling entrepreneur, therefore I feel no inclination to “support” them by buying their software if I don’t actually want to use it.

Essentially, Serif is a business, selling Affinity software. I decide to purchase and use their software based on it’s features, quality, price etc. If I came across better software, at a better price, I would use it instead. (That said, as mentioned, I have been using Serif software for quite a number of years!) I would not use it, if I did not want to, simply through some sense of “loyalty”. I don’t think of myself as “supporting” Serif particularly, I am simply a customer purchasing a product that I wish to use.

If other people feel that they are entitled to special treatment, simply because they have made a previous purchase from the same company, that’s up to them. If it makes them feel better, because other people end up worse off than they are, that is also up to them!

At the end of the day I doubt if anyone really buys something simply due to any genuine feelings of “loyalty” to a particular company, nor will they buy something they don’t want or need just to “support” a thriving business! If you have so much money that you buy things that you don’t want or need, why complain if you don’t get a bigger discount than someone else? If you do want the product, rather than an alternative one, why complain that you are not being “thanked” for buying it?

(Sorry for this rather repetitious rant, but repetition seems to be the way this thread, and similar ones, are going!)

Having had my say, I will now shut up, leave others to their interminable, repetitious arguments, and get on with doing some work with my Affinity software!
 

 

 

 

You're forgetting timed discount rate differences:

 

IOW: Release discount of 40% for everyone. 

After the release discount duration is over, new users get only 20% discount for the next couple of weeks. A continued but reduced introductory special, whilst v1 users still get 40% discount

 

After a few more weeks, the 20% for new users intro discount goes away, and the 40% upgrade discount remains, for a while longer, but also slowly ramps down to zero discount, over a much longer time. Preferably a full year and a half (to be fairest), as it winds down to zero discount... 

Then, throughout that time, whenever a new user discount promotional event occurs, do the corresponding discount to the current remaining upgrade discount, so prior users are still getting a better deal.

This pleases everyone, and permits Affinity to slowly ramp new users up earlier, to the full price, and not make the 40% discount seem so blanket.

AND use sales/promotional discounts well, as they please, when it serves them best, and everyone is always happy.

Considering how this ramping works to increase gross revenue over time, by virtue of a shorter period of full intro 40% discount for new users with higher pressure and stronger calls to action, they might have been able to offer a 50% upgrade discount for a brief period, before slowly ramping down the amount of upgrade discount.

Which would have looked better, and been a better way to do all this.

 

 

 

[Corgi]

2 minutes ago, loukash said:

I'd expect the Serif management being mature enough to have their reasons for being silent on certain topics. As in: not being silent might cause them even more damage in the long run. Long term business strategy is an asset that not everyone needs to know about.

My experience is that even with smart management and their best of intentions, companies frequently make mistakes both big and small that prompt one to wonder, "What were they thinking?"

Again, in my opinion, Serif did a poor job on certain aspects of user communication, and some of the fallout for that was evidenced by what happened in the forums after launch. I would be interested to know whether any of Serif staff agree with my judgment on that.

Please note that the issues I have are not limited only to Serif's long-term strategy. But speaking of long-term strategy, I'm not in a position to judge whether revealing aspects of the strategy in advance would have been beneficial to Serif. But neither are you, and I guess that's why you used the phrases "I'd expect," "might cause," and "not everyone."

 

[loukash]

4 minutes ago, Corgi said:

I would be interested to know whether any of Serif staff agree with my judgment on that.

[Corgi]

31 minutes ago, Corgi said:

I would be interested to know whether any of Serif staff agree with my judgment on that.

23 minutes ago, loukash said:

That post doesn't actually come out and say that the staff recognizes that they could've done better communication-wise.

And...that's precisely the topic that I linked to in my topic-starter for this thread. It's a terrific post. But it came out 1 week after v2 release. If it had come out coincident with v2 release, or even prior to it, imagine how it would have defused much of the angst. 

[deeds]

2 hours ago, debraspicher said:

Basically, install apps from outside the appstore. I would think you would need like a few checkboxes and a guilt screen before Apple lets you run something from outside their store. Android is like this.

FWIW: whenever someone talks about marketing and selling apps outside of the major App Stores, the conversation excludes iOS devices as that ship has sailed. Apple has a monopoly on the provision of software to their iOS devices. There's a significant court case occurring to challenge this, in which interesting parties like Microsoft and Sony are seemingly supporting the endeavours of Epic Games (Tim Sweeney and Mark Rein) to challenge this monopoly. 

 

Google is attempting to curtail the creation of alternative stores and side loading on Android phones in the manner in which iOS has achieved this, but aren't having as much success, but have had significant success reducing payment options. This is also being challenged by Epic games, and also supported by other interested parties.

The biggest exceptions to this are in China, wherein (even before the sanctions) there were massive alternative stores for Android devices. Some were provided by telecommunications companies, and these were/are amazing. Like nothing we have in the west. Some are created by the handset manufacturers and others by big online retailers. All of them are incredibly competitive and make the case for both why Google and Apple fight so hard for monopolies (massively higher margins and controls) and for the effect of free markets on pricing, discount and support.

Microsoft has a boot in both camps, seemingly wanting to challenge the successful absolute channelling of single payment gateways to all apps that others have, and slowly prepping to do this themselves, for themselves on their platforms.

If Affinity were to sell their products on the Epic Games Store like (for example) Krita does (Krita is kinda like Procreate on steroids, for PC), they'd get to see how a more friendly (to software makers) and competitive store operates. The margins for developers are higher, to begin with 88% versus 70%.

 

Who knows how Apple would perceive that kind of activity...  

[monzo]

10 hours ago, PaulEC said:

A small group of “entitled” people have their egos boosted because they feel they have been “thanked” for purchasing a product that they wanted to buy anyway.. (No one has to buy it if they don’t want to do so.)

When a customer feels valued by a company, they don't just buy a product - they spread the word. Tell their friends, colleagues. They don't have to do this, but by being thanked for their loyalty to the company, it creates a relationship where they return the favour.

If this didn't work, then loyalty schemes and customer relationship management wouldn't be a thing.

Nothing to do with 'entitlement'. That language will have potential customers turning away in their droves.

[deeds]

1 hour ago, monzo said:

When a customer feels valued by a company, they don't just buy a product - they spread the word. Tell their friends, colleagues. They don't have to do this, but by being thanked for their loyalty to the company, it creates a relationship where they return the favour.

If this didn't work, then loyalty schemes and customer relationship management wouldn't be a thing.

Nothing to do with 'entitlement'. That language will have potential customers turning away in their droves.

Perhaps the thing about the long periods of silence and general secrecy this thread pertains to is that whilst it's a tactic to avoid whatever Affinity thought this kind of seclusion might prevent, it's also definitely been preventing any chance of significant virtuous cycles of ambassadorial users keen on deeply learning and then promoting the  products and their empowerments/possibilities in an organic and wide scale manner.

Fortunately, for Affinity, no other digital creativity apps in their space have figured out how to foster a good, virtuous cycle of community, either, during the lifespan of these products. Inevitably, this will happen, and it won't be Affinity that creates this. They don't have the chemistry, attitude or market insights to make this kind of thing happen. And the products are increasingly not the kind of special sauce that engenders and fosters creative excitement, enthusiasms and new endeavours. 

Do see a counter example, Cinema4D did this very well in the early to mid 2000's, whilst their much bigger rivals had become somewhat entitled and presumptuous about their place in the market, C4D stole and then created whole swathes of users and new creatives by just being "cool".

Houdini is trying to do it more recently, but they're stuck with a usage paradigm that's so weird to most people that their efforts are actually driving more interest to Blender, which has a more traditional user paradigm, and the benefit of huge Open Source goodwill, now that they're not as clunky as before.

Early on, Sketch had some of this kind of energy around it, but their workflow is so lacking in flow and reward for creativity being expressed on the fly that they were probably largely responsible for folks considering the Figma workflow acceptable.

And I think Affinity's completely dropped the ball on work flow. Having never really understood it, instead just copying the most identifiable (and often worst) aspects of Adobe's paradigms, they now seem to have completely ignored possible advancements in workflow and feel, and regressed in many crucial ways that will be difficult to turn around from. 

[Corgi]

1 hour ago, deeds said:

Perhaps the thing about the long periods of silence and general secrecy this thread pertains to is that whilst it's a tactic to avoid whatever Affinity thought this kind of seclusion might prevent, it's also definitely been preventing any chance of significant virtuous cycles of ambassadorial users keen on deeply learning and then promoting the  products and their empowerments/possibilities in an organic and wide scale manner.

...

And I think Affinity's completely dropped the ball on work flow. Having never really understood it, instead just copying the most identifiable (and often worst) aspects of Adobe's paradigms, they now seem to have completely ignored possible advancements in workflow and feel, and regressed in many crucial ways that will be difficult to turn around from. 

There is merit to your argument, but I don't think it's as dire as all that.

With improved communication, Serif could certainly have headed off some of the dismay that caused certain people to wonder if Affinity had been abandoned, or announce that they were leaving Affinity behind for various reasons (which, in turn, could cause potential purchasers who view the forums to look elsewhere).

But there still seems to be a vibrant community excited by Affinity, although I'm not in a position to judge how it stacks up against the other products you mentioned, or whether it can be characterized as "wide-scale." 

With respect to workflow, I'm a hobbyist and have only superficial observations. To counter your assertion, StudioLink represents a concrete workflow improvement, and is in fact one of the hallmarks of the Affinity trinity. Though, to agree with your assertion, the lack of a Lightroom equivalent seems a large omission, especially when someone looks into comparing the cost of Affinity with the $10/month Photoshop+Lightroom bundle.

[Corgi]

One more point regarding Serif's communication issues: they are not keeping their FAQ as up-to-date as it could/should be. According to the topic, Affinity V2, updates, pricing and no subscription: 

Quote

However, taking on board some of the feedback there is something extra we can do – we will offer a new free bundle of content exclusively for V1 customers upgrading to V2 as an extra thank you for your support. 

That's great. However, this fact is not mentioned in the FAQ, in the answer to the question, "Do you offer upgrade pricing?" So prospective upgraders who (rather than search the forum) go to the home page, click on the Full FAQ link, and read this entry, won't be aware of the incentive. Perhaps Serif is waiting to finalize the contents of the free bundle, but why not indicate that good news is coming on this front?

Also, I'm not seeing the MSIX/MSI issue addressed in the v2 FAQ. Surely it's better to include it in the FAQ, rather than have customers become confused and upset that there was no information available (other than scouring the forums) about the change prior to purchase and installation.

[deeds]

3 hours ago, Corgi said:

There is merit to your argument, but I don't think it's as dire as all that.

Sadly, I don't think of this as dire, but commonplace. The norm, so to speak. The exceptions are rare, and wonderful. 

[debraspicher]

It's not an experience I share, but it's worth linking here as I think ALL user experiences are valuable!

Quote

I'm kinda flummoxed with v2. While v1 had it's issues I felt it was generally well thought out, and going in the right direction. It wasn't my daily driver (I am still using Adobe), but I did use it as often as I could because I genuinely liked working with it. It was fun to use. That said, the endless workarounds after 7+ years were getting ridiculous and it was becoming harder and harder to justify investing the time in the Affinity suite. Enter v2.

I really, really wanted to like v2. REALLY. I was genuinely hoping that with this release I could see the end in sight for my Adobe subscription. Unfortunately, the more I use v2 both on macOS and iPad the more disappointed I'm becoming with it. There are so many BAD design decisions, things that are confusing, things that feel half-baked, and things that just don't work. Normally I would post issues to the forum and wait to see what happens (spoiler: nothing ever happens), but I'm a bit at a loss as how to proceed.

I was hoping that with the BIG launch of v2 we might see a new, more communicative Serif—one that had fixed many of the long-standing issues with v1. One that had developed a solid foundation on which to build a truly outstanding suite of design applications. One that saw the release of v2 as a new beginning, and was willing and prepared to work with it's user base to "set a new standard in the world of creative software". Instead I'm finding the more I work with v2, the more unusable it becomes for me. It's no longer fun to use. There so many questionable design decisions, the iPad apps essentially now require a keyboard to use, and every few minutes I seem to be running into another bug. I could go back to v1, but v1 is now essentially on life support, so going back simply means going back to more endless workarounds and long-standing issues that already made it difficult to justify investing my time into the Affinity apps.

I want to go on the v2 journey, but sadly this 'BIG' release combined with Serif's consistently mute communications style has really eroded my confidence in Serif. So much so that I'm not sure I believe v2 will actually become useable, let alone something I actually want to use. I'm now left wondering if it's time to finally cut my loses and give up on the Affinity suite?

Probably…

[CM0]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:38 AM, Corgi said:

There is merit to your argument, but I don't think it's as dire as all that.

With improved communication, Serif could certainly have headed off some of the dismay that caused certain people to wonder if Affinity had been abandoned, or announce that they were leaving Affinity behind for various reasons (which, in turn, could cause potential purchasers who view the forums to look elsewhere).

Affinity essentially traded complaining about roadmaps etc to complaining about no roadmaps and no communication.  I don't think this tradeoff was a win by any means.  Other companies successfully engage with their users.  There is no magical reason that Affinity should be different.  Complaining about lack of knowledge is literally useless to the company as it can't be used in any meaningful purpose.  Complaining about roadmaps etc is actually useful as it is a feedback loop if used properly.  BTW, roadmap doesn't have to be the mechanism for engagement, but some means of higher bandwidth communication is really what is needed.

It seems Affinity is too afraid of negative feedback to engage.  That really can't be avoided and really shouldn't even be looked on as a negative.  People who passionately love your product will be vocal about it.  The company I worked for had in depth engagement with users.  Often difficult, but it was always seen as necessary to truly understand needs of users.  Not engaging with users will never make negative complaints go away.

[Corgi]

2 minutes ago, CM0 said:

...Complaining about roadmaps etc is actually useful as it is a feedback loop if used properly.  BTW, roadmap doesn't have to be the mechanism for engagement, but some means of higher bandwidth communication is really what is needed.

It seems Affinity is too afraid of negative feedback to engage.  That really can't be avoided and really shouldn't even be looked on as a negative.  People who passionately love your product will be vocal about it.  The company I worked for had in depth engagement with users.  Often difficult, but it was always seen as necessary to truly understand needs of users.  Not engaging with users will never make negative complaints go away.

I agree with you other than not being clear on whether you're saying the lack of engagement can be seen as a negative. Why wouldn't it be?

There is no way to avoid complaints in the forums even with a bug-free product, of course. What I'm wondering is what sorts of non-forum and non-website communication Serif used for determining the feature set for v2. Apart from the Feedback & Suggestions forum areas, how widespread was their Beta? What kinds of user surveys or focus groups did they conduct? I'm thinking that the MSIX snafu suggests these sorts of proactive (if secretive) communication with users didn't happen (at least, not with Windows users).

It does take time, staff, and careful attention to communicate well, so perhaps Serif just wasn't equipped for the effort. Although that still wouldn't explain why they aren't more forthcoming in the forums about upcoming plans ... a single well-timed post can work wonders.

[CM0]

14 minutes ago, Corgi said:

There is no way to avoid complaints in the forums even with a bug-free product, of course. What I'm wondering is what sorts of non-forum and non-website communication Serif used for determining the feature set for v2. Apart from the Feedback & Suggestions forum areas, how widespread was their Beta? What kinds of user surveys or focus groups did they conduct? I'm thinking that the MSIX snafu suggests these sorts of proactive (if secretive) communication with users didn't happen (at least, not with Windows users).

It has been one of the things I've brought up many times.  I've been on the other side, as I'm a developer myself.  What I know is that my company would never be able to figure out the right priorities from a forum.  A forum just doesn't have the tracking capabilities to know how many people are interested in a particular feature/bug and rank them properly.  We also did iterative development year round.  So users could always checkout progress of a feature and give feedback before it was completed.  This often saved months of rework that might need to be done.  We had opportunity to change the implementation before we had already put in too much work.

We also would have team calls with heavily invested users/partners to discuss potential upcoming features before work started so we could get a lot of good feedback before starting.  And nothing discussed on the call was ever guaranteed.  That was made clear, but the calls were useful at giving more feedback on user interest as well to help rank priority.

I would really love to see Affinity at least engage with some of the major content creators for Affinity.  Have a public recorded round table discussion.  I think that would be a lot of free marketing for Affinity as well.  I could see a lot of excitement around a company willing to do such type of engagements.

[debraspicher]

I'm perfectly fine without a roadmap, as long as communication from the company (read: not staff) is more responsive to its user base. Also, that updates are consistently added in such a way that builds upon people's expectations. Also, that they are absolutely not delivering unfinished/unpolished work. If it really comes to it, bring out a beta and ask users for help. There's nothing wrong with this. Many here would be glad to help if it means speeding up certain things in the roadmap being actually delivered. However, never let it leave beta without being so polished it has a mirror finish and some narcissist can't stop using their programs.

Adobe never gave us a roadmap or even empty promises that I could remember. The reason people felt secure with them is because they held to a consistent release schedule/pricing schema. Every update included something of value, even if it was still ignoring certain niches. They could ignore half the userbase on something, but when someone has their product in their arsenal, they know its shelflife. It's not a guess. Serif only has V2 now to accomplish a higher reputation, so credit where credit it is due, they have the bigger task.

They should signal by their choice of updates that they are listening to users while going after whatever else they have planned. The forums are as close to a focus group representation that they have, but there's also social. Something as basic as being response in threads with feedback about how the development of a certain feature is going would be great, but it doesn't have to be super detailed. It really doesn't. Simply updating threads when actual changes make it into a beta because of a suggestion would be enough to give many people a sense of long-term security and a feeling of progress. That's a massive start off the right foot right there. Obviously not everyone can agree on update priority, but just go through the feedback thread list and pick 2-3 that are up there in their own list which can be delivered reasonably sooner than later. Take notes on what we said, critiqued, etc and update those threads later when things are added.

It shouldn't need to be said, but nobody can communicate any intention but them... we're all just guessing otherwise?

[Tia Lapis]

But which users? Those that style themself "pro"? Why?

[Ronald N. Tan]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:51 PM, loukash said:

My point – and question to @Ronald N. Tan – actually was, why the idea of Serif "[dropping the sale of] their apps in the Apple and Google Play app stores" should be of any benefit for Serif. At the scale that Serif operates, i.e. being among the best selling apps on the Apple Store of their category and thus likely making a loads of cash there, it doesn't make sense.

Mea culpa concerning the iOS apps and users on iPad.

As a super happy user of Affinity Publisher V1, I know Affinity Suite of Apps started with iOS and MAC platforms, before they became available to the PCs.

Going forward, I still would to see Serif (somehow) cutting off the "middle man" and receive/handle all transactions back to them.

What if the iOS and MAC versions of Affinity Suite of Applications are strictly 30-day trials? If the iOS and MAC user wants to unlock their apps, they would have to purchase the license at the Affinity Website and not buy at the iOS store.

Isn't this possible?

[Brian_J]

I don’t know what Apple’s terms are for sellers, but they may have rules against efforts to lead customers away from the App Store. Regardless, many customers probably prefer purchasing from the App Store, so preventing it could be a barrier to entry for a significant number of potential customers.

[debraspicher]

1 hour ago, Ronald N. Tan said:

Mea culpa concerning the iOS apps and users on iPad.

As a super happy user of Affinity Publisher V1, I know Affinity Suite of Apps started with iOS and MAC platforms, before they became available to the PCs.

Going forward, I still would to see Serif (somehow) cutting off the "middle man" and receive/handle all transactions back to them.

What if the iOS and MAC versions of Affinity Suite of Applications are strictly 30-day trials? If the iOS and MAC user wants to unlock their apps, they would have to purchase the license at the Affinity Website and not buy at the iOS store.

Isn't this possible?

It's likely against their Terms of Service. See: Epic Games v. Apple

Quote

Epic Games v. Apple is a lawsuit brought by Epic Games against Apple in August 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, related to Apple's practices in the iOS App Store. Epic Games specifically had challenged Apple's restrictions on apps from having other in-app purchasing methods outside of the one offered by the App Store. Epic Games' founder Tim Sweeney had previously challenged the 30% revenue cut that Apple takes on each purchase made in the App Store, and with their game Fortnite, wanted to either bypass Apple or have Apple take less of a cut. Epic implemented changes in Fortnite intentionally on August 13, 2020, to bypass the App Store payment system, prompting Apple to block the game from the App Store and leading to Epic filing its lawsuit. Apple filed a countersuit, asserting Epic purposely breached its terms of contract with Apple to goad it into action, and defended itself from Epic's suit.

 

[Artsketch]

10 hours ago, debraspicher said:

Adobe never gave us a roadmap

They do it in Adobe Fresco. In the iPad app, you can see a list of upcoming features and share feedback.

[ajharok]

2 hours ago, Artsketch said:

They do it in Adobe Fresco. In the iPad app, you can see a list of upcoming features and share feedback.

They do that for Illustrator, Photoshop, ... on iPad Apps. But the thing is you can trust that Adobe will there for a long time. Affinity file format is closed, no other app supports it. Serif fixes bugs so slow and many bugs are there for years. I have to trust a company to build a complete workflow for me/company on a product. I use Affinity for small, not important projects. For big, serious projects i have still a Adobe subscription. 

[Artsketch]

1 hour ago, ajharok said:

They do that for Illustrator, Photoshop, ... on iPad Apps. But the thing is you can trust that Adobe will there for a long time. Affinity file format is closed, no other app supports it.

Yes, these too. On iPad there is much good competition: Artstudio Pro, Vectornator, Procreate and many more. The Affinity V1 file format can only be opened by V2. This, the lack of features and slow development makes it still a second choice. Not enough.

[Corgi]

3 hours ago, ajharok said:

They do that for Illustrator, Photoshop, ... on iPad Apps. But the thing is you can trust that Adobe will there for a long time. Affinity file format is closed, no other app supports it. ...

For the most part, yes. But if you are an owner of CS2, you can no longer activate it. And if that's any precedent, CS6 will end up being un-activate-able. So Adobe is perfectly capable of appearing dead to its customers unless you're willing to pay them additional money, even if you've purchased a lifetime license.

All the more important for Serif to assure us that there will be a way to activate their software even if they shut down their activation server.

[big smile]

Just saw the post by Ash on Affinity V2, updates, pricing and no subscription. And I think this topic is probably to best to comment on it. 

I think Serif have handled upgrade pricing perfectly. The universal license is an insanely good deal as are the other pricing options.

I can't see why people are complaining. A lot of companies (e.g. SkyTV, insurance, etc) only give their best prices to new customers. Serif are treating both old and new the same. No one loses out. 

I do feel for people who recently purchased V1. Things like this have happened to me in the past with other companies, and I still feel the sting of it. But, it's life. It happens. It is not a problem Serif needs to fix, especially, as the upgrade pricing for V2 is more than reasonable. 

In my view, there really is no need to give bonus content as a thank you to V1 customers. And zero need to support the V1 software with updates when MacOS breaks it. Both of these are only taking away precious development time from V2. It's wholly unnecessary and I would have preferred they hadn't done this and just put all their efforts on V2. 

Are Serif perfect? No. I think they should have done a public beta for V2, as it's got too many bugs. I am sure these problems will be fixed. But it's annoying for launch software to be this buggy, especially as there is no way to downgrade a file from V2 to V1.

But on pricing, I think they've been more than fair. Software development is not free. They have offered a cracking deal for the upgrade. They should not be expected to do anything more. 

I just felt I needed to share my views on this, as I'd hate for Serif to feel the need to please everyone, fail at it and then feel there is no choice but to switch to subscription. Like I said, I am sympathetic to people who feel differently about the upgrade pricing, but again, software development is not free. It needs to be paid for. Serif have been more than fair in this respect. They should be celebrated with their approach.