Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Why not saving in V1 format?


Recommended Posts

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:

 

Microsoft Windows 10 Home (Build 19045)
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X @ 3.8Ghz (-30 all core +200mhz PBO); Mobo: Asus X470 Prime Pro
32GB DDR4 (3600Mhz)
EVGA NVIDIA GeForce GTX 3080 X3C Ultra 12GB
Monitor 1&2 4K @ 150%

WACOM Intuos4 Large; X-rite i1Display Pro; NIKON D5600 DSLR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

More than 30 Macs, from 1984 Mac 512K Plus to 2020 iMac 27" i9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

-- Walt

Desktop:  Windows 11 Home, version 21H2 (22000.613) 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 
Laptop:  Windows 10 Home, version 21H2 (19044.1706) 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
        Affinity Photo 1.10.6 (.1665) and 2.0..3  and 2.0.3.1670 beta/ Affinity Designer 1.10.6 (.1665)  and 2.0.3 and 2.0.3.1670 beta / Affinity Publisher 1.10.6 (.1665)  and 2.0.3 and 2.0.3.1670 beta
iPad Pro M1, 12.9", iPadOS 16.3, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard

      Affinity Photo 1.10.6 and 2.0.3 / Affinity Designer 1.10.6 and 2.0.3 / Affinity Publisher 2.0.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 11.7.3 
Affinity Designer 2.0.4 | Affinity Photo 2.0.4 | Affinity Publisher 2.0.4 | Beta versions as they appear.

I have never mastered color management, period, so I cannot help with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

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.

That's a straw man argument. Are you saying that people are very unhappy that Adobe lets them save for older versions?

It's a business decision. Time versus return. I'd wager there's also an element of "carrot and stick" about it all. The great new features are the carrot, and for those who don't have a need for the new features, well then there's the stick to help them along 😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I wonder how many PS users actually use that feature

It's probably used a lot less since CC has become more widely adopted. I remember using it quite a lot, different companies and freelancers had various versions available and it made collaborating fairly straightforward.

People have given good reason for needing it, maybe it is just a small percentage of the user base. I get the business logic of it, they are a small team and lots of other things people want are still not implemented. At the same time, maybe fostering some goodwill wouldn't hurt. In any case, from a technical standpoint it's possible and exists in other software.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

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.

Affinity Photo 1.10.5.1342 ; Affinity Designer 1.10.5.1342;Affinity Photo 2.0.0.1640 Affinity Designer 2.0.0.1640; Affinity Publisher 2.0.0.1640; Affinity2 Beta versions. Win10 Home Version:21H2, Build: 19044.1766: Intel Core i7-4770, 3.90GHz, 32GB Ram, Nvidia GTX 645, 3-Internal HDD (1 Crucial MX5000 1TB, 1-Crucial MX5000 500GB, 1-WD 1 TB), 4 External HDD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

All 3 1.10.6, & all 3 V2.03 Mac apps; 2020 iMac 27"; 3.8GHz i7, Radeon Pro 5700, 32GB RAM; macOS 10.15.7
Affinity Photo 
1.10.6; Affinity Designer 1.10.6; & all 3 V2 apps for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 15.7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.