affinity suite The future of the Affinity suite

[postmadesign]

I have done some thinking about what direction Affinity is heading relative to the competition. Adobe has been making a lot of strides, specifically with AI powered features. Even if Affinity 2.0 is a very good update, and 2.1 added some good improvements, I still feel that the general perception is that Affinity is stalling a bit.

Serif took up a huge task for a small company putting out a very nice integrated suite of programs at a very good price. They took the fight to competition with 3 programs that could replace mre well known industry standard programs, at least to a high degree. By being so affordable, they provided a good entry point for small businesses, freelancers and enthousiasts. I truly appreciate what Serif created in this respect. Providing these apps also on iPad was quite visionary as well. Then the v.2 offered a universal language for all apps at a very good price, making an offer very hard to ignore.

However it is a very big task to keep 3 apps on 3 platforms up to date, provide regular updates and not lose the users to the competition. The competetion in this field has become much more severe than it was even 10 years ago and I think this is why Serif really needs to ask the question where to go next.

In my vision there is only one way that makes sense: fully integrate the 3 apps in one program! Affinity has been about the integration of the various parts from the start, and this has been its unique selling point. Publisher was the cherry on the pie in this regard. With the Universal License, Affinity made it clear that you get the best result when all apps are installed. Let's not kid ourselves into believe any one of these 3 apps is the best in class in terms of features (best bang for a buck though). It's strength lies in how well the different parts work together.

There are 3 apps now, and though I understand they are meant for different use cases, but in real life as a designer, these do not always make sense. Having to jump over from designer to photo to use a filter on an illustration, or from photo to designer to round the corner of a shape is annoying, and it seems arbitrary. Publisher led the way in providing all elements of the suite in 1 program (albeit in reduced form) and I feel this is the only logical way to develop the suite. Making 1 app instead of 3 saves resources and makes it less prone to comparisons to similar programs. The persona approach which was in designer from the start provides a good base, but I would argue that the user should be provided with more options to customize they layout to its preferences. This is an area where Affinity is lacking a lot.

I see this as the biggest chance for Affinity to keep their own unique place in the market, but I look forward to other ideas.

[SallijaneG]

I like this idea, though as a nonprofessional being able to simply switch personas rather than programs is usually enough for me.

[postmadesign]

7 minutes ago, SallijaneG said:

I like this idea, though as a nonprofessional being able to simply switch personas rather than programs is usually enough for me.

You are right for many use cases, but I still often run into situations where I have to switch programs for one tiny thing, which is annoying. I just want it all in one place and only change persona, not program.

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, postmadesign said:

I just want it all in one place and only change persona, not program.

Since version 1, I've been using APublisher as the default application for all types of documents (*.afdesign, *.afphoto, *.afpub) and only use Designer and Photo Personas to switch for specific functions. And that includes the specific layout of the Toolbar, Tools panel and Studios/Panels, which I have adapted for the given use. So I definitely don't need one "monster" application, and it would be mistake from Serif in my opinion, because it would certainly lose many customers who use only APhoto or only ADesigner.

[v_kyr]

Your sketched future reminds me somehow to the old times "Framework" kind of integrated system Office Suite once available from Ashton-Tate.

If I actually look at the overall memory consumptions (...and also the many old and new bugs every single app still transports on it's own here) I'm not sure if it would be an overall good idea to go this all-in-one route. Further the whole would probably also enhance the overall usage- and develop complexity, if everything is placed in an all-in-one app. - A common metaphor is usually to split a complex problem into better manageable smaller chunks and not the opposite way, the same applies for software development and most software end usage scenarios.

[PaulEC]

I wonder why Adobe haven’t decided to merge Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign into one giant app; or why Microsoft haven’t done the same with their Office suite? Perhaps Serif should lead the way? 🤔 or, perhaps not!
Maybe Adobe and Microsoft know what they are doing and there are good reasons for having an integrated suite of related apps, rather than just one, huge mess of a single app!

[postmadesign]

8 hours ago, Pšenda said:

and it would be mistake from Serif in my opinion, because it would certainly lose many customers who use only APhoto or only ADesigner.

I am not sure about this if the UI is better and you can have different workspaces/personas, so if you would be editing a photo, it would be much like AF right now.

7 hours ago, v_kyr said:

A common metaphor is usually to split a complex problem into better manageable smaller chunks and not the opposite way, the same applies for software development and most software end usage scenarios.

I agree in principle, yes. But the problem I see is that the 3 Affinity apps share the same code base, so changes to the one app will have an effect on other apps as well. A problem with the pen tool will have to be fixed on all programs. By bundling it into 1 they could save resources by not having to makes changes across all apps. Serif is a small company, not like Adobe, and I don't believe they have different independent teams working on different apps, but I might be wrong.

I believe though that from a financial and resources perspective, Serif needs to focus on their USP, which to me is integration. By not having an app that could be compared to Illustrator or Photoshop, you would stop direct like-for-like comparisons and focus more on a unque product.

7 hours ago, PaulEC said:

I wonder why Adobe haven’t decided to merge Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign into one giant app; or why Microsoft haven’t done the same with their Office suite? Perhaps Serif should lead the way? 🤔 or, perhaps not!
Maybe Adobe and Microsoft know what they are doing and there are good reasons for having an integrated suite of related apps, rather than just one, huge mess of a single app!

I see your point, but the comparison is not quite right. Microsoft and Adobe are huge companies compared to Serif. But to be able to build such a suite of apps, all Affinity apps share the same code base. They were developed to work together from the beginning. The suites you mentioned never were, and especially with the Adobe suite, they are still playing catch up in this regard.

[Pšenda]

7 hours ago, PaulEC said:

just one, huge mess of a single app!

But already today, APublisher uses StudioLink to bring the functions of the entire ASuite in one application. However, the Person concept elegantly separates the individual tasks, including the appropriate adaptation of the work environment.

[Pšenda]

32 minutes ago, postmadesign said:

I am not sure about this if the UI is better and you can have different workspaces/personas, so if you would be editing a photo, it would be much like AF right now.

Unfortunately, I do not understand the meaning of your response in the context of the quote from my post. I really don't see the relationship between "losing customers" and the mentioned "UI".

 

P.S. I will also add my opinion about the loss of customers when switching to one all-in application, which will be unnecessarily expensive for many - why should they pay 3x as much when they only need to edit photos, i.e. no drawing (they also have a basis in APhoto) and no text functions (they also have a basis in APhoto), and unnecessarily complicated. Today, they buy one app that fits their needs and wallet exactly. After a certain period of use, they will find that drawing could actually be useful for them (after all, ADesigner is more handy for drawing), the applications understand each other (full file compatibility), they are already familiar with the controls, and other costs will somehow dissolve (it is not a one-time higher investment, and they are buying another function for which they are happy to pay something extra). The same, for example, with APublisher. So in the end they buy two/three apps one by one (they let themselves be lured into another by using one), which they would never do with an expensive all-in, and prefer to buy another simple photo/draw/text app they just need.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Pšenda

[PaulEC]

42 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

APublisher uses StudioLink to bring the functions of the entire ASuite in one application.

IMHO StudioLink is a (almost) perfect solution: most of the functions you need accessible from one place, but all the functions still in three apps, developed as three independent apps, but designed to work together!

[postmadesign]

2 hours ago, PaulEC said:

IMHO StudioLink is a (almost) perfect solution: most of the functions you need accessible from one place, but all the functions still in three apps, developed as three independent apps, but designed to work together!

This is basically what gave me the idea that a one app solution could work.

[postmadesign]

2 hours ago, Pšenda said:

P.S. I will also add my opinion about the loss of customers when switching to one all-in application, which will be unnecessarily expensive for many - why should they pay 3x as much when they only need to edit photos, i.e. no drawing (they also have a basis in APhoto) and no text functions (they also have a basis in APhoto), and unnecessarily complicated. Today, they buy one app that fits their needs and wallet exactly. After a certain period of use, they will find that drawing could actually be useful for them (after all, ADesigner is more handy for drawing), the applications understand each other (full file compatibility), they are already familiar with the controls, and other costs will somehow dissolve (it is not a one-time higher investment, and they are buying another function for which they are happy to pay something extra). The same, for example, with APublisher. So in the end they buy two/three apps one by one (they let themselves be lured into another by using one), which they would never do with an expensive all-in, and prefer to buy another simple photo/draw/text app they just need.

I see what you mean, but I don#'t think the distinctions between the apps are clear cut, and have not been from the beginning: Designer was unique in the the way it combined Vector and raster elements in one app. In fact you could do most of the things that Photo does in Designer. Photo also has vector elements. I in fact find it frustrating that for some reason or another, only some functions are ported over to the other apps, while others are not. If you are doing purely photo-editing, you might not need the other apps. But having the vector pencil tool in Photo could be very beneficial, as well as having artboards, or a corner tool... These are just some examples where I feel the split between the apps is merely arbitrary.

As for the price: Affinity offers a universal license right now, which is such amazing value that I can hardly believe it will keep customers from buying the app. Perhaps when they split it up into platforms it might reduce the price even a bit.

I think that by saving resources in only developing 1 hybrid and unique app Affinity would be on a good path. I don't mind if you disagree, it's just my 2ct.

[fde101]

This has come up before several times, and Serif has consistently indicated they have no intention of merging the apps.

[postmadesign]

19 minutes ago, fde101 said:

This has come up before several times, and Serif has consistently indicated they have no intention of merging the apps.

Alas, one can dream...

[Pšenda]

11 hours ago, postmadesign said:

Alas, one can dream...

Have you tried what I suggested? That is, open the document in APublisher, and using Person use functions from APhoto and ADesigner (not switch to them). To me, it does exactly what an single all-in app should do.

 

11 hours ago, postmadesign said:

Affinity offers a universal license right now, which is such amazing value that I can hardly believe it will keep customers from buying the app.

Apparently you didn't register dozens of angry users after the release of version 2 that the discount is only 40% of your fabulous/cheap price 🙂

[postmadesign]

11 hours ago, Pšenda said:

Apparently you didn't register dozens of angry users after the release of version 2 that the discount is only 40% of your fabulous/cheap price 🙂

I can not really take these complaints seriously. Some people just want everything for free, and throw a tantrum when they don't. Affinity is amazing value, regardless of any discount.

[Pšenda]

5 minutes ago, postmadesign said:

I can not really take these complaints seriously. Some people just want everything for free, and throw a tantrum when they don't. Affinity is amazing value, regardless of any discount.

I agree with you of course - I'm just pointing this out as an example that perceptions of ASuite's value for money may simply be different.

[Cedarbear]

You all seem to have ignored the fact that there was once such a fantastic all-in-one application that incorporated vector/pixel/format-publishing into a single app that Adobe bought the company out and quashed that app putting the creative world back almost two decades. That app was FreeHand, from Macromedia. Adobe did not buy Macromedia for any particular app except to bury FreeHand, which was gaining ground against Adobe's big-3. Yes, integrating the Affinity suite into one app is not only doable, but because they have the same core codes, they would interface into one app on the same exact basis FreeHand was developed to do. My company and I have sorely missed Macromedia FreeHand, especially for label creative/templating/format/generating/printing, which Adobe Illustrator is still clumsy and craps at doing, especially regarding its templates/pages-within-pages feature. As I see it, the Affinity suite turned into a single integrated app, like FreeHand was, would be a winner, and very attractive to both amateurs and professionals in a huge way, and believe me, it would have Adobe shaking in their boots! One would hope that the folks at Serif would not betray their user base like Macromedia did in the sloppy way they sold their company to Adobe, who would only be interested in acquiring Serif to repeat the FreeHand debacle. That would be my long-term concern regarding integrating the Affinity suite into one app and the folks at Serif.

[Pšenda]

3 hours ago, Cedarbear said:

integrating the Affinity suite into one app is not only doable

Yes, it is doable, and as mentioned above, Serif already does this in APublisher as well.