Why not saving in V1 format?

[Gianni Becattini]

If I open a V1 file and save it, it will be saved in V2 format. No function is provided to save in V1, as Microsoft and Adobe do.

It could seem more a marketing choice, to avoid that after the trial, nobody goes back. 

[debraspicher]

3 minutes ago, Gianni Becattini said:

If I open a V1 file and save it, it will be saved in V2 format. No function is provided to save in V1, as Microsoft and Adobe do.

It could seem more a marketing choice, to avoid that after the trial, nobody goes back. 

They're adding a warning supposedly to let users know to save a backup before opening in V2 as it won't be able to go backwards. However, people have said that copying and pasting to V1 works fine for most things? Obviously a bit late for those thinking to take up the promo. As to the rest we don't know, but they did tweet their reasoning on this:

 

[Gianni Becattini]

It's simply a choice: even if the files are different, you could have a function for saving in the old format, loosing the new features if any (Microsoft tells you in details what you are loosing).

Copy and paste: it seems THE MINIMUM!

[walt.farrell]

The Affinity Suite has never provided backward compatibility. Even in V1,

• 1.8 could not open files saved by 1.9
• 1.7 could not open files saved by 1.8
• 1.6 could not open files saved by 1.7
• etc.

V2 simply carries on that behavior, and 1.x cannot open 2.x files.

[thomaso]

48 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

The Affinity Suite has never provided backward compatibility. Even in V1,

• 1.8 could not open files saved by 1.9
• 1.7 could not open files saved by 1.8
• 1.6 could not open files saved by 1.7
• etc.

V2 simply carries on that behavior, and 1.x cannot open 2.x files.

A comparison between the behaviour of V1 and V2 in terms of backward compatibility does not reflect the whole reality and seems somewhat distorted:

Neither did the steps between various 1.x versions mean a separate app installation or require a separate purchase nor did they have increased system requirements. In view of this new conditions in V2, the thought "V2 simply carries on that behaviour" is simply not correct. The consequence that the increased system requirements may necessitate a different operating system, at least on the Mac, makes switching from Affinity V1 to V2 nowhere near as simple as all previous v1.x updates.

Note, all the previous updates could be installed without any additional consequences apart from backwards compatibility. Thus backwards compatibility simply did not matter in V1 – but definitely does in V2.

[Old Bruce]

Let us say Serif writes a some code to save version 2 files as version 1 openable files. What would happen with Designer's Warp Group, Photo's Linked Raw files and Publisher's Footnotes when we save as a version one compatible file? I feel like I could guarantee that most people would be very unhappy with how they are handled in version one. And keep in mind that those three items are not the only new features in the suite.

[Tim Parsons]

I've been saving as PSD's if someone else needs the file. I also was having an issue with the Liquify Persona being super slow (non-usable) in AP2 so I saved my document as a PSD and loaded it into AP1 and used the Liquify Persona to get the job done.  

[R C-R]

38 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

And keep in mind that those three items are not the only new features in the suite.

Or that they may be planning new features for V2 we know nothing about, or how that would affect anything saved back to the V1 file format.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, BofG said:

Are you saying that people are very unhappy that Adobe let's them save for older versions?

I wonder how many PS users actually use that feature.

I also wonder how many Affinity users would use it if it were available, particularly if it did not include everything created in V2....

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, BofG said:

At the same time, maybe fostering some goodwill wouldn't hurt.

But since they are a small team & we do not know what else they may have planned for V2, they have to weigh the goodwill that offering a save as V1 might get vs. the goodwill that redirecting those efforts toward new V2 features & particularly bug fixes would get.

Besides, I suspect that unless the save in V1 format option was itself completely bug free & did not break anything V1 supported, the goodwill would be quite limited.

6 minutes ago, BofG said:

In any case, from a technical standpoint it's possible and exists in other software.

But as has been mentioned many times the Affinity software is not like other apps in several respects, so we really do not know how difficult or time consuming it would be to implement this.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

I wonder how many PS users actually use that feature.

I also wonder how many Affinity users would use it if it were available, particularly if it did not include everything created in V2....

Note that their file formats .xml / .idml to create their backwards compatibility nowadays causes profit especially for Serif + Affinity users by enabling them to transfer ID files to APub. From that view it appears strange to have any doubt about the sense of software which enables backwards compatibility.

2 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

I feel like I could guarantee that most people would be very unhappy with how they are handled in version one.

36 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Besides, I suspect that unless the save in V1 format option was itself completely bug free & did not break anything V1 supported, the goodwill would be quite limited.

Again, same argument: Would you, Serif or most Affinity users in fact rather waive the ability to open PSD or INDD/IDML documents than live with the current limitation when using them? As far I see the complaints about conversion issues are less than requests for the according features being implemented in Affinity.

"I feel like I could guarantee" that people would prefer to be able to open V2 files in V1 applications with certain restrictions if the only alternative for them is not to be able to open them at all.

It appears really weird to emphasize possible "limited goodwill" for a backwards conversion unless it would be "completely bug free" … if you consider the amount of existing bugs in V1 users are forced to live with, partially since years, and partially transferred as V2 bugs. – Compare: The ability to open .idml in APub is definitely useful, although Affinity fails to convert ID's Global Layers bug free.

[R C-R]

3 minutes ago, thomaso said:

From that view it appears strange to have any doubt about the sense of software which enables backwards compatibility.

But what about from the view that the development work needed to enabling this would adversely affect their ability to add new features & particularly bug fixes to the new V2 apps? As has been mentioned many times, they are a small company with limited development resources.

Which do you think most V2 users would prefer to see them focus on?

[thomaso]

15 minutes ago, R C-R said:

But what about from the view that the development work needed to enabling this would adversely affect their ability to add new features & particularly bug fixes to the new V2 apps?

This seems to contradict your thought of efficiency. Personally, I would have preferred/expected a V2 version that was bug-free at least for the bugs known in V1, some of which have been known for years. Of course, a general judgement is not possible, because it varies individually how limiting bugs are perceived by users compared to new V2 features. Not only because certain bugs – or missing features – do not affect all users, but also because some can live with a bug – or a missing feature – more easily than others.

Especially with limited development resources, the aspect of efficiency affects every single decision ... and could theoretically even argue for always working only on those tasks that take the least time or coding resources, even if that would reduce the overall quality of the app.

[R C-R]

@thomaso, again I will ask you which you think most V2 users would rather see Serif focus its limited resources on doing, fixing bugs in & adding new features to V2 or diverting some of the effort to developing a useful save in V1 format option?

[thomaso]

As I said before: "a general judgement is not possible, because it varies individually how limiting bugs are perceived by users compared to new V2 features". Considering backwards compatibility as a third aspect in your calculation doesn't change my answer.

You seem not to understand my point: The backwards compatibility format .idml causes profit for Serif and Affinity users. From this aspect any touch of avoiding backwards compatibility or arguing against it with whatever justification, seems strange, especially for Serif.

Now I ask you:
1. Should Adobe have developed new features instead of their .xml / .idml formats … and thus nowadays possibly prevent new customers for Affinity?
2. Are you able to make a reliable judgement what most Affinity users want concerning a certain bug or feature? How about corrupted documents, app crashes or scripting for instance?

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, thomaso said:

From this aspect any touch of avoiding backwards compatibility or arguing against it with whatever justification, seems strange, especially for Serif.

My argument is simply that Serif only has limited resources so they are choosing to focus that on what would benefit the most users the most. That is not backwards compatibility, particularly considering whatever else they may be planning to add to V2 that could make it even harder & more resource intensive to continue to maintain a useful backward compatible option.

There is no point in trying to compare what a huge company like Adobe has been able to do to what Serif can do. 

[thomaso]

4 minutes ago, R C-R said:

My argument is simply that Serif only has limited resources so they are choosing to focus that on what would benefit the most users the most.

I seriously doubt "most users" have mayor or final influence on Serif decisions, every decision is rather a mixture of desires, needs, skills & costs.
(for "most users" the special astrophotography features would hardly exist, for instance)

As far I remember in the Serif survey some months ago was no question like "What bug do you want us to fix first" … but for feature requests only. So it may even hard to judge what "most users" feel or think about bug fixing vs. new features.

[R C-R]

10 minutes ago, thomaso said:

I seriously doubt "most users" have mayor or final influence on Serif decisions...

Why? It should be obvious to everyone that if Serif did not pay attention to what the majority of their existing & potential user base wanted the company would not long endure.

[thomaso]

9 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Why? It should be obvious to everyone that if Serif did not pay attention to what the majority of their existing & potential user base wanted the company would not long endure.

To me it is rather obvious that more aspects than just "most users" need to be considered for development decisions. As mentioned: desires, needs, skills + costs are considered for development decisions. If a company lacks in a certain skill they are forced to move the related aspect to the background. On the other hand they can easily make use of a special existing skill, regardless of "most users", as for instance astrophotography.

The forum has already various prophecies like "the company would not long endure" – most of them emotional guessing and rather worthless.

Increasing purchases is just one possible goal in product development – it does not say anything about quality for instance. Not only the software but for instance also the car industry illustrates that companies have a variety of goals for their product development decisions – to reach "most users" is neither the main nor the only or the general aspect. Especially small companies often focus on different aspects than "most users" only.

[Ron P.]

Corporations that sink a major amount if money into such development as ensuring backward compatibility, have huge assets. Adobe, the one most often referred to and compared to Serif has a net worth of around $150 Billion. I think they have the resources for whatever they want to do.

Here's another one, Cascade Parent LTD, DBA Alludo, ie; Corel. I recall when they purchased InterVideo/Ulead, for a mere $196M. The following information is from Wikipedia.

They own titles such as

• Corel Chess  – using a chess engine developed by Don Dailey and Larry Kaufman
• Corel Designer – Formerly Micrografx Designer, professional technical illustration software.
• Corel Digital Studio – a set of four applications: PaintShop Photo Express (a light version of Paint Shop Pro), VideoStudio Express (video-editing software), DVD Factory (DVD burning and converting software), WinDVD (DVD player software).
• CorelDRAW – A vector graphics editor.
• Corel Graphics Suite – Combination of CorelDRAW, PhotoPaint, and Capture.
• Corel Home Office – an office suite based on Ability Office 5 and also bundling Corel's WinZip software.^[27] It is incompatible with Corel's own WordPerfect file formats.^[28]
• Corel KnockOut – Professional image masking plug-in.
• Corel Paint It! Touch – Drawing and painting software created specifically for the Windows 8 touchscreen PCs.
• Corel Painter – a program that emulates natural media – paint, crayons, brushes etc (formerly Fractal Painter).
• Corel Photo Album – A sophisticated program for organizing digital photographs, inherited from Jasc Software.
• Corel Photo-Paint – A bitmap graphics program comparable to Adobe Photoshop, bundled with the CorelDRAW Graphics Suite.
• Corel SnapFire – A digital photo management suite, positioned to compete with Google's Picasa offering, later developed and marketed as Corel MediaOne.^[29]
• Corel Ventura – Desktop publishing software that had a large and loyal following for its DOS version when Corel acquired it in the early 1990s. It was briefly revived in 2002.
• Corel Linux OS (discontinued)  – One of the first GUI-based distributions of Linux incorporating an automatic installation program in 1999.
• CorelCAD – 2D and 3D computer-aided drafting software.^[30]

That's not to mention what they've acquired:

• AfterShot Pro – Photo management software, based on Bibble after the acquisition of Bibble Labs in 2012.
• Avid Studio – A video and audio editor specializing in production technology. Avid Studio was renamed Pinnacle Studio in September 2012.
• Bryce – Software for creating 3D landscapes. Sold in 2004 to DAZ Productions.
• Click and Create – A game development tool created by Clickteam that was also sold as The Games Factory. Click and Create 2 was sold to IMSI who released it as Multimedia Fusion.
• MindJet MindManager – In August 2016, Corel purchased Mindjet as per announcement.
• PaintShop Pro – In October 2004, Corel purchased Jasc Software, developer of this budget-priced bitmap graphics editing program.^[31]
• Paradox – A relational database acquired from Borland and bundled with WordPerfect Office Professional Edition.
• Parallels – a range of virtualization products, sold as Parallels Desktop for Mac, Parallels Server for Mac, Parallels Workstation, and Parallels RAS.
• Quattro Pro – A spreadsheet program acquired from Borland and bundled with WordPerfect Office.
• VideoStudio – A digital video editing program originally developed by Ulead Systems which remains a distribution of Ulead Systems. The software was rebranded Corel VideoStudio since Corel acquired Ulead and it became a working division of Corel.
• MotionStudio 3D – A 3D text and animation program originally called Ulead COOL 3D and was developed by Ulead Systems. It was rebranded after Corel acquired Ulead.
• WinDVD – A video and music player software, acquired in 2006 from Corel's purchase of InterVideo.
• WinZip – An american computer optimizer software company acquired by Corel in 2006.
• WordPerfect – A word processing program acquired from Novell, and originally produced by WordPerfect Corporation.
• XMetaL – An XML editor acquired in the takeover of SoftQuad in 2001 and then sold to Blast Radius in 2004.
• Gravit Designer – A cross-platform vector graphics editor acquired in the takeover of Gravit GmbH in 2018.
• ClearSlide - Sales Engagement Platform, Sales Enablement + Engagement

They make their programs backward compatible, However I think they have the resources to make that happen. Do you think Serif is even 1/10th that size? Do you think they have the staff/employees like Corel or Adobe? Just because Serif is able to produce a product that gives them a run for their money, does not mean they can easily do those things these behemoth corps can do. Also if Serif steps on the toes of either of them, they could easily bankrupt Serif with legal proceedings, easily.

People need to stop for a minute and think ( I know that's forbidden in several places now), about what their asking Serif to do.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, Ron P. said:

Adobe, the one most often referred to and compared to Serif

As far as I can see, it was a conscious decision by Serif themself to want to compete and be compared with this giant. I doubt that there were "most users" or Mac users demanding Mac versions of Serif's former range, nor Windows users demanding the initial range.

Discontinued products

• PagePlus: Desktop publishing software for Windows
• DrawPlus: Graphic design software for Windows
• PhotoPlus: Digital image editing software for Windows
• WebPlus: Website design software for Windows
• MoviePlus: Digital video editing software for Windows
• Digital Scrapbook Artist: Digital scrapbooking software for Windows
• CraftArtist: Digital scrapbooking software for Windows
• PanoramaPlus: Image stitching software for Windows
• PhotoStack: Image editing and organisation software for Windows
• AlbumPlus: Image organizer software for Windows
• Scan, Stitch, and Share: Document mosaicing software for Windows
• FontManager: Font management software for Windows

So it seems strange to me to argue implying Serif can't be bothered to maintain a certain quality these days or would have to develop new features instead of, or in parallel with, bug fixing or maintaining compatibility with whatever. They have a margin of discretion in their road map. This includes their freedom to focus on designing new tool icons, for example.

[Corgi]

Just to be clear, the following relates to v2 exporting (Save As) v1, not backwards compatibility. And we are all aware that if such an export feature existed, it would necessarily be imperfect whenever the v2 file uses features unsupported in v1. We already live with these compromises when dealing, say, with PSD export.

Everyone has their own unique priority list of what they'd like to see Serif do with Affinity with respect to features and bug fixes. And nobody on this forum (except perhaps Serif mods) has anything better than half-educated guesses as to the optimal business strategy for Serif to optimize their profits.

It's obvious that since their resources are limited, if Serif developed v2=>v1 Export they would have to not develop some other feature or bug fix. However, you could substitute any feature anywhere in that sentence, and it would be true.  For example, "If Serif fixed this occasional crash condition, then maybe they wouldn't have the resources to improve their user interface." So this argument is true but doesn't seem helpful.

A narrower question might be, in v2, would customers be happier for Affinity to drop PSD export in favor of adding v1 export? But still, who is in the position to know the correct answer to that?

Serif resources aside, the lack of v2=>v1 export comes across as a bit of a slap in the face: not-so-subtle arm-twisting to encourage people to upgrade all of their Affinity installations, and the Affinity installations of anyone else they might want to send a file to (including users seeking help in the forums). Maybe this is an incorrect perception on my part, but that's how it made me feel. 

[R C-R]

37 minutes ago, thomaso said:

As far as I can see, it was a conscious decision by Serif themself to want to compete and be compared with this giant.

What do you base that on? More than once, the staff have explained that they are not interested in competing head to head with Adobe or any other company.

[Ron P.]

Just now, R C-R said:

What do you base that on? More than once, the staff have explained that they are not interested in competing head to head with Adobe or any other company.

I agree, as far as I can tell, recall, it's always been the people, the consumers that have drawn that conclusion. I think in an interview Ash done a few years ago, he was asked if competing with Adobe is what he's wanting. This is not direct quotes, but he indicated it would be nice, but not what his focus was on.

[thomaso]

1 minute ago, R C-R said:

What do you base that on? More than once, the staff have explained that they are not interested in competing head to head with Adobe or any other company.

The comparison or competition gets indicated by the goal to be able to open their file formats.