Affinity products for Linux

[MisterBooth]

@wonderings
 

Because Adobe didn't pursue a Linux version doesn't mean that another company should shy away from it, we can only speculate their reasons for pulling out but we shouldn't be sheep in this world. Business is always a risk but I honestly think the risk is relatively small in this case.

I went through the Quark to Indesign myself.. fun days. Missing fonts are always an issue but it's second nature to know that and linked files can easily be converted including placed pdfs. Linked replacements can cause position, scale issues but again you deal with the old when needed and build with the new.

Yes time will tell if a future version of Affinity can deal with older versions but I sure they are fully aware of this.

I've been using a Mac since 1992 and a PC since 1995 and dabbled in Linux over the years. They all have pros and cons but lately Mac OS just isn't the same I've had too many issues recently and with rumours of Windows becoming a subscription OS, true or false,  means that Linux has become more attractive to me, I must add in a non sexual way. We just need a company brave enough to make it happen.

By the way there are a lot of Blender users out there who prefer Linux but have to jump onto a virtual Windows to do some 2D texturing. That's another big market place.

[Redsandro]

55 minutes ago, wonderings said:

I just do not see it being a smart move at this time.

That's a fair opinion. Others think different, and opine that the market is artificially small. It's the famous chicken and egg problem.

Quote

[The small Linux market share] is a result of the software developers not supporting Linux rather than any fault of Linux itself. This creates a chicken or the egg situation where developers don't make programs for Linux due to its small market share, and consumers don't use Linux due to absence of the programs.

We simply do not know. We can't definitively argue a position.

We can enhance a position with anecdotal evidence, or even debate a market share multiplier for example by suggesting that user characteristics imply Linux (3.38%) could have a higher degree of creatives than MacOS (9.46%) has, similar to how MacOS might have a higher degree of creatives than Windows (86.69%) has. Since the adjusted MacOS marketshare for Affinity is 9.46/(86.69+9.46)*100 = 10%, Affinity could test this hypothesis by verifying that more than 10% of their sales are for the MacOS platform. Because if the MacOS number is 25%, it would mean the creative market share om MacOS is 2.5x bigger than the actual market share. Extrapolated to Linux, the creative market share would be similar to that of MacOS. However, when this was proposed, Affinity didn't share those figures, so we cannot argue a position on that.

If this is literally about numbers, we could propose a no-cure-no-pay scheme like a crowdfunding campaign where a minimum sum of money would need to be raised, but Affinity already emphasized that they do not approve, will not support a crowdfund, and will not make a Linux version even if the money target would be reached. So we cannot probe any interest from that.

So, with all avenues closed, we the users cannot definitively argue a position, and the market for creative commercial software on Linux is now Schrödinger's egg. We don't know if the chicken exists until there is professional grade photo and vector software on Linux. All we can do is share opinions.

However, when an opinion includes ad hominems like "rabid", or empty platitudes like "It is not Serifs job to make Linux grow", it comes across as rather bitter, and we're left to speculate on the motivations and interests that inspire such fallacies.

[msdobrescu]

1 hour ago, Redsandro said:

Actually, I see a lot of users here with a license for the Mac and/or Windows version of Affinity products, would like to have a chance to (find out what it's like to) switch to Linux.

It's often that people's first experience with Linux is a positive one, and they quickly learn that their newfound enthusiasm is met with outdated opinions, arguments from ignorance, and psychologically interesting ad hominems like rabid and zealot in which an attempt is made to argue against the positive experiences of the new Linux user by likening their personal computing choices to the the characteristics of a small idealistic group of Stallmanists in the hopes of discrediting these newfound opinions by their Windows using peers, who are afraid that some formerly trivial minority OS like Linux might take away some of their software support privileges when developers might actually choose at some point to divert some of their focus and attention to this new upcoming reality.

Don't worry, you've got nothing to fear from this thread for at least the entire 1.x release branch.

Shocking :))) I've had my first positive experience with Linux .... 9 years ago! I have the same distro since then.

1 hour ago, wonderings said:

You seeing a lot of users is anecdotal evidence, it really means nothing in terms of hard numbers and how many actual users there could potentially be. You would certainly not be using it when developing strategies for expanding a product line into a new market. And more anecdotal evidence about users first experience. I am not afraid of Linux growing or even becoming the biggest OS in the world, I would learn to use it and continue on. When the arguments for Linux go beyond reason then they are fuelled by something else. There are Apple people like this and Windows users. They are passionate about the OS of choice and like to preach the virtues of it. I would say I was like that to a lesser degree with Apple products in the past. 

I am not worried at all about Affinity on Linux. I think it would be great to have options for Linux users. I just do not see it being a smart move at this time. As it was said "nothing personal, it's just business". I am not emotionally attached to my computer, OS, or software. I like when they work and let me accomplish the work I need to get done. 

 

Anecdotal... I wouldn't count them anyway. Who does?

I am not emotionally attached to my Linux. I am rationally attached. I am emotionally and rationally attached to freedom.

[Squirrel Logic]

2 hours ago, msdobrescu said:

Anecdotal... I wouldn't count them anyway. Who does?

Researchers and strategists do.

Qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) data may be harder to quantify by its very nature, but that doesn't make qualitative data less important than quantitative data. Quantitative data is easier to measure. It takes less time than processing narratives by humans, and turning qualitative information into quantitative data to be presented to stakeholders.

You have to listen to what people are saying. I think it's the root cause of a lot of the problems we are seeing with tech companies that have—quite frankly—ruined lives because they chose to be data-driven instead of data-informed. If you don't count anecdotes and user stories as part of your decision making it means you are not counting what users are actually saying. People's voices, stories, and personal experiences should not be flat-out ignored. It makes you blind to the bigger picture.

Innovators will always be doing things where there are no numbers to back it up, because innovators do things no one has done before.

In my little corner of the print/graphic/web/software design industry, most of the people I work with on a professional level very much want a Linux version, including the company I work for. I was able to convince us to become a Affinity shop, but it is a drag for our Linux-using designers and developers to use a VM to run the software. But don't let that be the reason why you won't support Linux. There's plenty of people who don't have the RAM to dedicate to a VM that you'll be missing out on.

I understand that the want or (in some cases) need for a Linux version among the design community may not sway Serif much in the short term, especially now that ARM is something macOS devs will have to deal with soon, but at the very least I hope that future companies will make the decision in the beginning to use a tech stack that will allow them to write cross-platform products easily.

[msdobrescu]

6 minutes ago, Metsys said:

Researchers and strategists do.

No, my bad. I mean, who counts them in this thread, out of the participants? As long as you say they are anecdotal, did you count them? Do you know how many here are pro or contra to be able to say they are anecdotal?

[msdobrescu]

12 minutes ago, Metsys said:

Innovators will always be doing things where there are no numbers to back it up, because innovators do things no one has done before.

What Steve Jobs did when created the Mac was to innovate because he brought consistency for designers (due to his calligraphy lessons, it is said). Too bad that spirit was lost. Linux users need it, designers need it. But...

15 minutes ago, Metsys said:

Linux-using designers

? What is that? There is no such thing, AFAIK, although I hope I'm wrong. To be a Linux-using designer you must have design software under Linux. VM is not the solution. That makes them Windows-using designers. Even though there are solutions to natively use the hardware (by the VM). It's still Windows.

[Squirrel Logic]

Okay. They are not Linux-exclusive designers; as you say, VMs running Windows. All our UI design work is done in Figma because it is a cross platform tool. There are design roles that can be done 100% in Linux without compromise. I count product designers and illustrators as "designers" too. Their tools also work 100% in Linux without compromise.

[msdobrescu]

7 hours ago, Metsys said:

Okay. They are not Linux-exclusive designers; as you say, VMs running Windows. All our UI design work is done in Figma because it is a cross platform tool. There are design roles that can be done 100% in Linux without compromise. I count product designers and illustrators as "designers" too. Their tools also work 100% in Linux without compromise.

If I'm not wrong, Figma is online. Regardless if it runs under Linux, from the user perspective, it is a browser application, so it does not count. I think apps running natively under Linux on the designer's computer count to the discussion.

[Squirrel Logic]

I think browser-based applications are totally valid. How many of us have replaced Microsoft Word with Google Docs? How many of us use our browser for email clients like Mailspring or Gmail instead of Outlook? Instead of Microsoft Project, we now use JIRA and Trello—all applications that run in a browser. Slack and Discord are browser applications; the desktop versions are just Electron apps. At the last agency I worked at, we used browser-based video software to create video for social media. Adobe is creating products like Spark, Lightroom CC, and Mikamo (3D rigging and animation) as browser applications. For us, Figma is a valid replacement for two desktop applications that do the similar jobs (Sketch and Adobe XD). In other words, there's plenty of desktop applications that we do not buy because a browser-based equivalent was better. If that doesn't prove validity of a browser application, I don't know what does.

Like it or not, the browser has become the newest operating system. They might not be as performant as desktop applications, but more often than not it does the job just fine, and have completely replaced desktop applications. WebAssembly (compiled code as opposed to JavaScript) allows CPU-intensive tasks run client-side in the browser, further opening up the possibility of more browser-based design applications. PWAs allow websites to be installed as apps on desktop and mobile devices. In the future, there shouldn't be a need to install the mobile app version of Trello, Notion, JIRA, Reddit, and so on.

Just because a piece of software is written in JavaScript, Wasm, and uses HTML/CSS for the UI, doesn't disqualify it from being a replacement for something written in C# or Swift.

Do I want every piece of software I used to be browser-based? No. I typically install the Electron/desktop version of most of the online software I use daily. I would rather use software that doesn't have the overhead of an Electron app. But these companies are using a tech stack that lets them write the software once and have it work everywhere. If Figma can do it for UI design, I don't think it'll be long until someone else does it for digital illustration, vector art, desktop publishing, and so on. I would much rather have native apps, but if a browser-based app comes along and does the job for everyone on our team that uses Linux? We'll take it.

[msdobrescu]

34 minutes ago, Metsys said:

I think browser-based applications are totally valid.

Indeed, they are valid, but what I discuss is Linux native apps. That makes a user Linux-based. Otherwise, it's rather cross OS, at least potentially as it is not Linux dependent as we are now bound to Windows/Mac for running the apps (Adobe CC, Affinity, etc.).

[JofreJKD]

13 hours ago, Metsys said:

I think browser-based applications are totally valid. How many of us have replaced Microsoft Word with Google Docs? How many of us use our browser for email clients like Mailspring or Gmail instead of Outlook? Instead of Microsoft Project, we now use JIRA and Trello—all applications that run in a browser. Slack and Discord are browser applications; the desktop versions are just Electron apps. At the last agency I worked at, we used browser-based video software to create video for social media. Adobe is creating products like Spark, Lightroom CC, and Mikamo (3D rigging and animation) as browser applications. For us, Figma is a valid replacement for two desktop applications that do the similar jobs (Sketch and Adobe XD). In other words, there's plenty of desktop applications that we do not buy because a browser-based equivalent was better. If that doesn't prove validity of a browser application, I don't know what does.

Like it or not, the browser has become the newest operating system. They might not be as performant as desktop applications, but more often than not it does the job just fine, and have completely replaced desktop applications. WebAssembly (compiled code as opposed to JavaScript) allows CPU-intensive tasks run client-side in the browser, further opening up the possibility of more browser-based design applications. PWAs allow websites to be installed as apps on desktop and mobile devices. In the future, there shouldn't be a need to install the mobile app version of Trello, Notion, JIRA, Reddit, and so on.

Just because a piece of software is written in JavaScript, Wasm, and uses HTML/CSS for the UI, doesn't disqualify it from being a replacement for something written in C# or Swift.

Do I want every piece of software I used to be browser-based? No. I typically install the Electron/desktop version of most of the online software I use daily. I would rather use software that doesn't have the overhead of an Electron app. But these companies are using a tech stack that lets them write the software once and have it work everywhere. If Figma can do it for UI design, I don't think it'll be long until someone else does it for digital illustration, vector art, desktop publishing, and so on. I would much rather have native apps, but if a browser-based app comes along and does the job for everyone on our team that uses Linux? We'll take it.

So... notnliking that mentality because the acceptance of this will allow the market to make PC's dumbterminals again. Slow connection? No connection? Need to type a paper? Sorry... cant go online so you cant use your software. OS's will be subscription based like everything else if they get their way. OS is always free amd updated will be the advertising, but license to use is another story. No thanks.

And no I haven't gone to google docs/etc. I've used the suite... but I wouldn't replace Office or Libre with it.

I guess we'll wait and see. Linux represents the OS of the people, rather than the OS dictating where we go or how software will run. Maybe it's my Amiga background... I just like freedom to work they way i want. 

[Squirrel Logic]

I totally agree. I prefer to have a local version of the software running, but if I have to choose between online-only software and being locked into just a couple operating systems, I'm going to choose the online-only option. Not having internet connectivity does not affect my day-to-day activities, but not having it run on Linux does. Of course for others it's a different story, where they are not working with Linux or good/cheap internet is not available. But for us, Linux support is more important.

Again, I don't like that mentality either of browsers-based software being the solution to our problems, but let me repeat this: Linux support is far more important to us. If there's no other option, we have to chose a solution that actually exists. It is important to accept the reality that browser-based software is a viable alternative, even if there is a better way.

I don't think operating systems will go subscription. It's against Apple's hardware business, and they already have perpetual income through the App Store. Microsoft has a greater focus on their cloud computing business than Windows (if their most recent update fiascos are any indication). In the apocalyptic scenario that any of these companies decide to make their OS subscription based, it's all the more reason why it is more important for software companies to t support Linux.

[msdobrescu]

7 hours ago, Metsys said:

I'm going to choose the online-only option. Not having internet connectivity does not affect my day-to-day activities, but not having it run on Linux does.

Sorry, but I don't see how not having internet connectivity does not affect day-to-day activities while going online.

[Squirrel Logic]

Oops. I mean to say that the risk of not having internet connectivity does not affect my day-to-day activities. Our uptime is solid and I have not had instances where I was not able to use online software for work.

[860lacov]

Maybe something like Kickstarter?

I have 3 programs from serif. I'm ready to pay once again for new Linux version.

[Jorgen]

8 hours ago, 860lacov said:

Maybe something like Kickstarter?

I have 3 programs from serif. I'm ready to pay once again for new Linux version.

Maybe they don't have the men power to make a linux port. If it's only the money, I'm sure the community will spend or donate enough money by Kickstarter or other platforms. I definitely will donate to have at least Affinity Photo on Linux. 

[Renzatic]

14 hours ago, Jorgen said:

Maybe they don't have the men power to make a linux port. If it's only the money, I'm sure the community will spend or donate enough money by Kickstarter or other platforms. I definitely will donate to have at least Affinity Photo on Linux. 

It's a nice idea, but it's also one rife with legal caveats and potential for a lot of hurt feelings.

The biggest problem with crowdsourcing a 3rd party to build a program for them is that the people who donate to the campaign will feel like Serif owes them a program. They won't see it as an potential investment, but rather a preorder. If they take the money, then later announce that, due to various reasons and unforeseen circumstance, they're unable to port the Affinity suite to Linux, it's going to piss a lot of people off. They'll feel let down, mislead, taken advantage of, and they'll end up taking it out on Serif. It'll cost them some community goodwill, and expose them to the possibility of a class action lawsuit.

It's not a situation a smaller company like Serif will want to put themselves in.

 

[Dave.Kelly]

One danger is that which happened to Bibble, which was Windows. Mac and Linux Raw editor. Corel bought the company renamed it AfterShot Pro and after a few years it died of neglect. I thought that it was planned to combine AfterShot with Paintshop Pro but it didnt happen.

[msdobrescu]

For me, AfterShot Pro was not an option when I've seen their proposed stitching procedure.

[Silberling]

I haven't read the whole thread but I'd like to point out that I'm interested in a good, supported, ideally native Linux implementation, too.

I love working with your products and I am using them for like a year I think.

Most of the development pipeline is Linux already, some of the assets, too, but not all. And I would really like to use Affinity Photo and Designer on Linux without taking care of wine and stuff like that myself. More of creative products should work on Linux natively.

I wouldn't care to pay extra for new licenses.

[JofreJKD]

Someone here said Microsoft wouldn't be stupid enough to make Windows as a service...

 

Well, welcome to stupid.

 

https://www.computerworld.com/article/3568449/microsoft-will-pitch-virtualized-windows-as-a-subscription-service-update-and-maintain-vms-for-cust.html

 

If you dont think people will make a major migration to Linux soon... think again.

[ravenshill]

I'm currently a Mac user, I'm developing my plan to move to Linux.  I'd like to not have to run windows virtually to run 'some programs'.  I have a license for Photo and Designer, I would love to be able to use a port of these great products to Linux.  I don't mind paying for software or services that are of value.  I'd even pay a premium to see affinity software on Linux, but obviously would prefer not too.   

I think there are forces pushing people out of Mac and Windows so having the choice of using great paid for software on Linux might be a good move for any software firm.  

For what it's worth I hope Affinity considers this avenue.

 

[Jorgen]

17 hours ago, ravenshill said:

I'm currently a Mac user, I'm developing my plan to move to Linux.  I'd like to not have to run windows virtually to run 'some programs'.  I have a license for Photo and Designer, I would love to be able to use a port of these great products to Linux.  I don't mind paying for software or services that are of value.  I'd even pay a premium to see affinity software on Linux, but obviously would prefer not too.   

I think there are forces pushing people out of Mac and Windows so having the choice of using great paid for software on Linux might be a good move for any software firm.  

For what it's worth I hope Affinity considers this avenue.

 

This is exactly what moves me from Mac to Linux. MacOS is becoming more and more buggy and unstable. Windows uses too many resources and has too many bugs as well.

But my feelings now is, that Serif or Adobe managers only will go the step for Linux if the creative market is big enough;
badly this market can't grow without good tools.  But in other sectors Linux is now more and more choice nr.1 for OS and it will also come to the private sector more and more;
so maybe some day Serif or Adobe go the step to Linux to let the market grow in that area too.

The big players have to make the first step, otherwise the user base will not grow in that area.
Most still work with linux for video grading (f.e. Davinci Resolve) and has to use a second device for Mac or Window$ just to run the photo editing tools :(
 

[Snapseed]

On 6/18/2020 at 9:52 AM, Patrick Connor said:

@GumboYaYa @mikewong & @spidershu

Welcome to the Serif affinity forums  and thanks for your thoughtful contributions. Just for clarity, Linux is not a part of our 1.x development plans, but we are not saying "never".

@Patrick, I'm not going to mention any particular names, but what some other companies do is try to make sure that their Windows software also works well with Wine so that Linux users can also benefit from that software.

Is it potentially possible for Serif to look into that compromise option at some time in the future?

[Snapseed]

On 7/20/2020 at 5:04 PM, Redsandro said:

That's a fair opinion. Others think different, and opine that the market is artificially small. It's the famous chicken and egg problem.

We simply do not know. We can't definitively argue a position.

We can enhance a position with anecdotal evidence, or even debate a market share multiplier for example by suggesting that user characteristics imply Linux (3.38%) could have a higher degree of creatives than MacOS (9.46%) has, similar to how MacOS might have a higher degree of creatives than Windows (86.69%) has. Since the adjusted MacOS marketshare for Affinity is 9.46/(86.69+9.46)*100 = 10%, Affinity could test this hypothesis by verifying that more than 10% of their sales are for the MacOS platform. Because if the MacOS number is 25%, it would mean the creative market share om MacOS is 2.5x bigger than the actual market share. Extrapolated to Linux, the creative market share would be similar to that of MacOS. However, when this was proposed, Affinity didn't share those figures, so we cannot argue a position on that.

If this is literally about numbers, we could propose a no-cure-no-pay scheme like a crowdfunding campaign where a minimum sum of money would need to be raised, but Affinity already emphasized that they do not approve, will not support a crowdfund, and will not make a Linux version even if the money target would be reached. So we cannot probe any interest from that.

So, with all avenues closed, we the users cannot definitively argue a position, and the market for creative commercial software on Linux is now Schrödinger's egg. We don't know if the chicken exists until there is professional grade photo and vector software on Linux. All we can do is share opinions.

However, when an opinion includes ad hominems like "rabid", or empty platitudes like "It is not Serifs job to make Linux grow", it comes across as rather bitter, and we're left to speculate on the motivations and interests that inspire such fallacies.

Linux has been growing recently (3.6% market share now) and I assume that this is due to factors like more people trying/using Linux at home during the Covid-19 lockdowns across the planet. I expect that trend will increase not least because any Intel MacBook bought now will become unsupported after a couple of years and I suspect that will push quite a few current Apple customers over to Windows and Linux.

Even Autodesk seems to be tiring of Apple management's antics and they've now discontinued Mac support for Autodesk's Alias and VRED software packages (and I suspect that more of this will happen).