Questions on Canva acquiring Affinity

[Bobby Henderson]

On 3/27/2024 at 7:05 PM, CM0 said:

Canva is competing with Adobe for the enterprise professional designers.

I was drinking a fountain soda while reading that and almost did a spit-take. Pretty funny.

While Adobe's software is geared for (and priced for) people doing creative work as a full time job Canva is not situated for that at all. Canva is a tool made for Karaoke Design. Users can just grab some pre-existing templates, pre-existing clip art and slap it together. They can quickly fake it at being an "artist." Another analogy: if a pro-level application like Adobe Illustrator is akin to a Fender Stratocaster then the Canva equivalent would be a plastic Guitar Hero video game controller with the funny colored buttons on the neck.

[CM0]

4 minutes ago, Bobby Henderson said:

I was drinking a fountain soda while reading that and almost did a spit-take. Pretty funny.

While Adobe's software is geared for (and priced for) people doing creative work as a full time job Canva is not situated for that at all. Canva is a tool made for Karaoke Design. Users can just grab some pre-existing templates, pre-existing clip art and slap it together. They can quickly fake it at being an "artist." Another analogy: if a pro-level application like Adobe Illustrator is akin to a Fender Stratocaster then the Canva equivalent would be a plastic Guitar Hero video game controller with the funny colored buttons on the neck.

You misunderstood. Canva has indicated they wish to begin to compete for the professional market. Not that they already do so. Affinity was purchased to expand beyond their current market.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/canva-acquires-affinity-design-suite-004813952.html

https://techcrunch.com/2024/03/26/with-affinity-acquisition-canva-should-be-able-to-compete-better-with-adobes-creative-tools/

[Bobby Henderson]

In order for Canva to compete with Adobe for professional-level graphics software users they're going to have to do so with something other than their name-sake web-based app. And it's going to take an entirely different marketing approach. If they're smart they'll leave the names of the Affinity applications unchanged and simply pour a lot of development resources into them. If they mess around applying the Canva brand name to them I think such a decision would backfire.

Canva has been marketed as being creative software for people who have little or no artistic talent or technical knowledge of graphics production work flows. The Canva brand name evokes that image. It would be best if an app like Affinity Designer doesn't have a bunch of hints Canva is the overlord. Since private equity minded business guys are involved I feel certain they may put a good amount of Canva-spam inside those desktop applications.

Also, it's not enough for them to use Adobe Express as a bar on where they should be reaching. If they want Designer and Photo to compete directly with Illustrator and Photoshop they need to aspire to that level.

[pixelstuff]

2 hours ago, Bobby Henderson said:

Since private equity minded business guys are involved I feel certain they may put a good amount of Canva-spam inside those desktop applications.

I wouldn't bet on that. I would guess it will be like the Stock window with Pixabay and Pexels content, possibly expandable, or as an extra tab in the New Document dialog.

Hopefully, unlike what Microsoft is doing recently with Windows Pro, Canva realizes professional apps shouldn't do things which might be distracting if the user isn't requesting it. Out of sight and out of mind, but also easy to access if needed.

[Alfred]

12 hours ago, Bobby Henderson said:

I feel certain they may … 

That doesn’t carry quite the same conviction as “I am certain they will …”!

[vitaprimo]

I was still debating if I should purchase v2, since I never wanted to upgrade post-Mojave (needed on Affinity v2) and I only use Windows in RDS RemoteApps.

But this with this I'm out for good. I read in the blog (on Affinity's site, I think, it doesn't matter since they're the same I guess) that there would be a free version. We all know what that means.

It said it's going to be for or start with the education segment, I believe, but you have to start creating dependency where it's most needed, right? After witnessing (and living since I'm one of those small customers Broadcom doesn't give a fxck about) I'm not waiting out to see if maybe it gets better or how long does it take for promises to be broken. I'm out open for new things right away. I'd advise anybody to do the same but I'm not a real designer, I don't make a living out of this so, you guys know what's best for yourselves hopefully. I'm really sad about this I was finally able to awesome things on my own and the advice I'd get from other users too I'll miss.

I knew it had been too long before they released a major version*, I had been saying so. Did they ran out of cash?? No I have no more excuses to put off learning Inkscape. It's kinda ugly and bulky, it's supposed to be good but if it can't design itself a UI…  🙄

Anyway, farewell Seriff 💔

*: I have a theory that this is in part Apple's fault because it pressured devs to provide upgrades forever, creating the mess we're in. Adobe may been who made the biggest news when it did the subscription thing, and Microsoft may probably be the oldest doing it (in the Enterprise) but Apple is the biggest install base or users who actually spend cash on apps which recently locked away third parties from doing shady data collection, which in theory is good, until you think about it and question why are there facilities to randomize identifiers usable for data collection in the system? Why are they collectable in the first place? Why does these facilities remain in there if Apple is — conveniently — the sole intermediary to access user data?

[CM0]

37 minutes ago, vitaprimo said:

I was still debating if I should purchase v2
... Anyway, farewell Seriff 💔

The first line somewhat indicates you had already said your farewell.

Canva will likely bring a much needed accelerated development to Affinity. I'm looking forward to it. Some of us who spend hours every day in Affinity see it differently.

[OriolFM]

10 hours ago, vitaprimo said:

*: I have a theory that this is in part Apple's fault because it pressured devs to provide upgrades forever, creating the mess we're in. Adobe may been who made the biggest news when it did the subscription thing, and Microsoft may probably be the oldest doing it (in the Enterprise) but Apple is the biggest install base or users who actually spend cash on apps which recently locked away third parties from doing shady data collection, which in theory is good, until you think about it and question why are there facilities to randomize identifiers usable for data collection in the system? Why are they collectable in the first place? Why does these facilities remain in there if Apple is — conveniently — the sole intermediary to access user data?

Funny that you mention Microsoft. Some time back I needed cloud storage that could sync with my desktop (too many lost documents in unreliable USB/network storage units). I started looking for good prices in cloud storage, and you know what? The cheapest option was to get MS Office365 AND receive 1 TB of cloud storage per user. There are also family plans with cheaper per-user storage.

The problem with most software subscriptions is when they don't deliver enough worth for what you're paying. Adobe, for instance, charges you a loooooot of money every month, and what they deliver is not so different from 2 or 3 versions back. If they had perpetual licenses for their versions from, say, two years ago, why on earth would people buy their new versions? Maybe a bunch of photographers wanting this particular new function they needed, but once that's in the software, why keep upgrading? How many more features they can add?

What makes the MS 365 subscription work is the added value they give you for it. Now let's imagine that Adobe told you "hey, we're charging you 100USD per month, but you get 10 TB of cloud storage with regular backups and seamless integration". Now that's a deal many people might be interested in. For Adobe it makes sense, since now storage prices are cheap, and that's a feature that requires little upkeep.

Of course, there's the other problem: apparently, Adobe "might" have used images by their users in their cloud storage to train AI. Without authorisation, or with an implicit authorisation hidden in the fine print of their Terms & Conditions.

And still some guys in their board will wonder why people don't purchase their nice subscriptions. Well, figures.

[JCP]

2 hours ago, OriolFM said:

The problem with most software subscriptions is when they don't deliver enough worth for what you're paying. Adobe, for instance, charges you a loooooot of money every month, and what they deliver is not so different from 2 or 3 versions back. If they had perpetual licenses for their versions from, say, two years ago, why on earth would people buy their new versions? Maybe a bunch of photographers wanting this particular new function they needed, but once that's in the software, why keep upgrading? How many more features they can add?

This is an issue across the board with a lot of software companies, especially with those that dominate the market due to incompatibility between competitive software and file type lock in. They no longer release enhancements and changes that are compelling enough for the customer base to pay for the "upgrade". Subscription allows them to justify their existence when they no longer deserve it. 

I wouldn't be as opposed to subs if file types and the data was completely open. File content should not be proprietary so it can easily move between applications. This would allow more competition to exist and keeping pricing options open and fair. Imagine buying Dewalt tools but all the work you do with them can't be "edited" with Black and Decker tools.....that's what Adobe and other companies essentially do.

[OriolFM]

1 minute ago, JCP said:

This is an issue across the board with a lot of software companies, especially with those that dominate the market due to incompatibility between competitive software and file type lock in. They no longer release enhancements and changes that are compelling enough for the customer base to pay for the "upgrade". Subscription allows them to justify their existence when they no longer deserve it. 

I wouldn't be as opposed to subs if file types and the data was completely open. File content should not be proprietary so it can easily move between applications. This would allow more competition to exist and keeping pricing options open and fair. Imagine buying Dewalt tools but all the work you do with them can't be "edited" with Black and Decker tools.....that's what Adobe and other companies essentially do.

Well, with many programs you can work in open format files, but these seldom support all the additional features particular to each software.

For instance, Word can open and work with Opendocument format (which is very well defined), but things like Macros, certain style choices and the history of changes/revisions won't work (because OO or LO don't have those options).

In design, SVG is as close as it comes to a standard vector file, and PNG/TGA are lossless files that support transparency/layers (but not both) for rasterized pictures, but all of these are extremely limited in their scope, and lack a lot of information compared to the "working" formats of professional programs.

There is not an opendocument specification for design equivalent to a PSD or an .AI file, for instance. GIMP's XCF files are as close as it gets to a normalised standard format, but no other program is using them, as far as I know.

The lack of open source alternatives in design software plays against standard formats.

[Petar Petrenko]

3 minutes ago, OriolFM said:

There is not an opendocument specification for design equivalent to a PSD

What about JPEG XL format?

[walt.farrell]

15 minutes ago, OriolFM said:

but things like ... and the history of changes/revisions won't work (because OO or LO don't have those options).

I'm not quite sure what you mean there, as LibreOffice (at least) does have change/revision tracking. Are you referring to something else? (Sorry, this is somewhat off-topic, I suppose.)

[walt.farrell]

14 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

What about JPEG XL format?

That's fine for raster images, but what about layers and all the other data that a PSD can hold?

[Petar Petrenko]

https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/

[pixelstuff]

45 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/

What they don't mention there are modern photo editor features like font and vector layers or live filters.

[walt.farrell]

57 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/

If you were responding to me, that site doesn't seem to answer my question. 

[Petar Petrenko]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

That's fine for raster images, but what about layers and all the other data that a PSD

It supports layers. What you mean with "other data"?

[walt.farrell]

22 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

It supports layers. What you mean with "other data"?

Think of all the kinds of things you can have in an Affinity document and save in PSD format.

But really, something like JPEG XL is no different in this area than something like TIFF. Photoshop can embed a PSD file in a TIFF container, and Affinity can embed an Affinity file in a TIFF container, but that doesn't help interoperability. It's not the format specification of TIFF or JPEG XL that matters for that, but the format and documentation of the data it's going to contain.

That is really what needs standardization.

[Petar Petrenko]

8 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Think if6 all the kinds of things you can have in an Affinity document

I miss some vital (for me) features of Publisher, so I still use InDesign when using Publisher is impossible. I ditched Photoshop, Illustrator, CorelDRAW for Designer and Photo. So, when Publisher will be ready (again, for me) I will use only Affinity file formats -- and TIF, PSD, JPG... only for communication with other users until JPEG XL arrives.

[OriolFM]

19 hours ago, Petar Petrenko said:

What about JPEG XL format?

It's a compressed raster format, only supports one layer (could use a workaround using several frames to represent different layers) and a lot of channels (allegedly including alpha channels), but it's clearly a web-oriented format focused on small size and decoding speed, not as a versatile working file.

PNG (supports transparency) or TIFF (transparency and layers) have been around very long as exchange files, but they are still missing many options regarding composite/modification layers, layer masks,  vector information, and others that are also not included in JPG XL.

As I mentioned, the problem here is the lack of a standard specification/features in design programs, and this is why each software maker adds whatever they need into their file formats.

[JCP]

7 hours ago, OriolFM said:

As I mentioned, the problem here is the lack of a standard specification/features in design programs, and this is why each software maker adds whatever they need into their file formats.

And they lock the format to lock users in to their software environment, which should be illegal. All files should be an open readable format. It's doable, look at the PDF format, it's mostly open and documented and look at how much competition there. There are dozens of PDF editors from small programs that do simple merging to programs more capable than Acrobat, like Bluebeam. Affinity can read PSD but they must be reverse engineering the file format and its not perfect.

[pixelstuff]

52 minutes ago, JCP said:

And they lock the format to lock users in to their software environment, which should be illegal. All files should be an open readable format. It's doable, look at the PDF format, it's mostly open and documented and look at how much competition there. There are dozens of PDF editors from small programs that do simple merging to programs more capable than Acrobat, like Bluebeam. Affinity can read PSD but they must be reverse engineering the file format and its not perfect.

It probably wouldn't be feasible to outlaw proprietary file formats. You might be able to demand that they are documented, but there would still be situations where a file contains raw data and depends on a custom module or plugin for decoding. Then you could quickly run into proprietary or copyright issues around knowing how that plugin is supposed to display that data.

[OriolFM]

15 hours ago, JCP said:

And they lock the format to lock users in to their software environment, which should be illegal. All files should be an open readable format. It's doable, look at the PDF format, it's mostly open and documented and look at how much competition there. There are dozens of PDF editors from small programs that do simple merging to programs more capable than Acrobat, like Bluebeam. Affinity can read PSD but they must be reverse engineering the file format and its not perfect.

The PDF is a different case. The PDF files were conceived not as a working format, but as an EXCHANGE format, which means that the specification had to be clear and readable. PDFs were the way Adobe could send files for printing with separate layers, color-coded, and to making sure that the printed image is as close to what's on the PDF as possible. The main point is that it needed to be readable. They even made the PDF reader free to use, to guarantee that the PDFs would be read properly, and then printed.

And yes, several companies reverse-engineered the PDF files to work with them, but still, PDF was designed as an exchange format, to export the working file with all you need for printing or reading, not for working on it. This is why results in editing PDFs can vary from useful to bad. If you complained to Adobe, they'll say that you should be working in Illustrator or indesign, and use PDF only as the previous step to print.

The only way of getting an open format file is having some organisation or consortium lay down the specifications and requirements for the file type, as it is done with OpenDocument. That organisation can create an international norm that defines the standard, and all the software makers can adopt it freely if they want to.

In design, nothing of the sorts has been done yet, and I doubt it will unless some big companies (not necessarily involved with design software) put their weight behind that. For instance, if Microsoft, Google and others decided they want to standardise some design files to circumvent proprietary formats, and made an agreement, also open to minor design software companies. Having that weight, they could create an open standard that could be used in their future software.

[andristzr]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:12 AM, Napkin6534 said:

From their FAQ (I bolded the important parts):
 

I dissect PR smokes/mirrors for living. So read between the lines — next versions may have different pricing structure. They are not ruling out subscriptions or other ideas. So, no more advocating Affinity for me, the future is bleak. No more investing mentally or financially (V2 could by my last purchase). Very sad they sold out: it was such a beautiful dream, European "David", independent, with clear price structure, striving underdog. Now it is circling the corporate aquisition drain.

I share the sentiment, but fortunately there are alternatives out there, and some of them are even free and open source, like Kanva and Gimp or Photopea. They might not be super polished but they can get you the job done all the same. Personally, I love Affinity for the slick design and utility but it is not a hill I'd die on when it comes to my fidelity as a client.

[CM0]

28 minutes ago, andristzr said:

but fortunately there are alternatives out there, and some of them are even free and open source, like Kanva and Gimp or Photopea.

None of these are even remotely in the class of Affinity. I do use Krita and Inkscape for some niche features when needed, but overall the workflow can't compete to the productivity of the integrated suite that Affinity offers. There is the Corel Draw suite, but that is about $500 for a perpetual license.

The only open source software that is positioning itself in the professional media tools suite is Graphite. https://graphite.rs/ However, it is still alpha and will be likely years before it is ready for professional use.