Advice

[Dale]

So, why to pay more?

 

Petar I think the flipside of your coin is just as clear.

 

Having a more expensive and possibly bloated app that performs what three Adobe apps can achieve could easily be considered undesirable for an illustrator who wants a lean and focused design app, or a clean layout program. And of course the cost of only buying one smaller focused app is very low. Why pay more?

[retrograde]

Hi Petar, it's hard to predict how this will eventually work out but with Serif very publicly starting out on this adventure promoting the "together-ness" of the 3 apps as a driving force behind what they're doing, I think they will really strive to keep that in mind when adding features to each app. It's one of their differentiating factors from everyone else out there. It's a new road, less traveled but it only makes sense if they stick to the plan.

[Petar Petrenko]

@Dale: There is no illustrator that needs features that are in only one app. They need features from all three apps but some more, some less. And not illustrators need the same features. Somebody will force bitmap app, th other one vector app, and so on. So, it is definitly ONE application what is the best for every illustrator, designer, photographer (yes!) and other kind of artists. No one of them buys only AI, but also PS and some of them ID.

And, very important, all new features AD users suggest, bellong in all three apps -- Designer, Photo and Publisher.  ;)

[Petar Petrenko]

To continue my previous post:

 

1. when APh and Apub starts, you will see all the same feature requests;

2. there are, already, 70% of APh and Apub features in AD;

3. if they continue to fulfill our requests you will get what I mentioned previous -- only one app.

 

When an upgrade comes for AD and they put, let's say 10 new features -- you pay for the upgrade.

Then an upgrade comes for the APh and -- hey there are the same 10 features, but OK, you pay again for the same upgrade but with different name.

Then an upgrade for the APub...?!?!?!

[Petar Petrenko]

No one can accurately determine which feature to which app belongs.

[AshTeriyaki]

Petar, I think you're going about this all wrong. Focus is key, and the workflows differ between types of work. Theres a lot of illustrator-esque functionality in PS nowadays but I'd still never dream of doing vector work in photoshop, the workflow is all wrong.

 

It's not a problem to be solved, it's just the nature of using tools. It's like saying "I like this drill, if only it could saw things too".

 

Agreed RE: photoshop. It's a bloated, horrible behemoth that I have actively wanted to ditch for several years now. I think the affinity boys are going to knock it out of the park and the idea of a shared codebase is music to my ears. This is how to make software. Well done chaps.

[VectorCat]

Well-stated AshTeriyaki

 

I think we can all resonate with what Petar is saying. For myself, I like my XYZ-tool to be 100% focused on XYZ-type tools. A little overlap is good but I don't want that overlap to come at the expense of the core function of that tool.

 

Seems like everyday I'm discovering some new, extremely well-thought-out feature of AD.

 

Well done chaps, indeed!

[Petar Petrenko]

@AshTeriyaki: I think you didn't read, or understood (if so, please apologize for my bad English) my posts #28 and #29 carefully.

[ronniemcbride]

I don't agree.

For my professional use, I prefer separate apps.

 +1

 

Same here.  If I only wanted the features of PS, I wouldn't want to have to pay the inflated price for an uber app that offered me tools I would never use.  The separation gives people choice, and a clear purpose.  There's also the danger of a single app doing more things but not as well as individual focused apps.

 

You could even go as far as to say that PS in it's current state is far too wide ranging in its feature set. They've tried to get into too many markets, and the result is a little over complicated.  I know from working in the game industry, PS was used for creating 2D textures - no one would ever dream of doing any kind of direct 3D model texturing (there are very good tools people use for that), but now we see basic 3D features in PS that don't quite cut it.

+1

 

I agree on the comments regarding keeping each app lean and responsive to each individual focus. PS's incursion into 3d is a glaring example.

+1

 

hahaha take my money 3x I'm ok with that lol, it is still nickels in comparison to adobe software. I so ready to say goodbye to that!

[omegaman]

But, they (will) share over 50% of features/code like Serif "...Plus" applications do. So, it will be very nice if it gonna be only one application. There are lots of advantages of this aproach:

 

1. less used resources (hard disk, RAM);

2. only one interface to learn;

3. only one file format;

4. no waste of time for import/export of files between apps;

5. all (three?) teams work together as one on only one app, not like Adobe (they are competition to each other);

6. faster new versions;

7. faster errors/bugs solving problems...

 

Fully against this, not everyone wants stuff they don't need. Keep the three programs separate and lean. Thanks.