Affinity for Linux

[Renzatic]

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

It's not an issue of reliability, so much as ease of use. All Linux software will run on all Linux distros. Appimages are just the no fuss, no muss approach to it.

[m.vlad]

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

What is so shocking about a developer using a better solution than what they were using before? Do you think Linus makes the entire linux kernel code by himself with no outside contributions? He had a distribution issue with an app, so he used a feature that was built to solve that. I don't get how that's a bad argument

[Redsandro]

4 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So why can Linus Torvalds, of all people, not RELIABLY get his software to run on Linux?

He can. He did. He is lazy. He didn't want to compile for 10 distro's. He found a solution in AppImage. Modeled after MacOS .dng.

[Renzatic]

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Why do you think that Adobe have not developed for Linux? I'll tell you: it's they have more sense than money.

You have Substance Painter and Designer on Linux, both of which are Adobe apps.

The problem with Linux isn't that it's small, rather that it's very specific. If you're working with code or 3D applications, you have tons of users with all the support you'd ever need. Graphics design? Well, that's more of a question mark.

[m.vlad]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

In my view Affinity developing for Linux is a waste of time for these reasons:

• Tiny market share of Linux on the desktop (despite what the Linux promoters will tell you).
• The problems that go with building software for Linux on the desktop due to incompatible versions of libraries.
• The utterly time-wasting arguments about which distribution to support, which packaging system, etc.

Of all the reasons, the top one will be most evident. But to quote George: Evidence of the old glazzies. Why do you think that Adobe have not developed for Linux? I'll tell you: it's they have more sense than money.

There is no proof for or against the share of linux because there is no telemetry.

as for your 2nd and 3rd arguments, do we need to refute them again? We've already given options for that - snap packages, appimages, etc. I don't see how packing in dependencies completely takes appimage off the table. sure it adds redundancies, but what about that makes it a no-go option?

As far as Adobe's reasons go, you have no source, you can only make claims about what their reasoning was. I can also put words in their mouth "They didn't want to do it because they have a large library and they have more than enough profit margin from their current supported operating systems". that gets us nowhere, we're just arguing fantasies.

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

You do not seem to understand the problem of developing software for Linux on the desktop. You cannot even begin to rely on which libraries and versions of libraries are installed.

Yes you can, that's the package manager. Or you can use a prepackaged solution such as appimages. Windows does that as well, you have developers packaging in dll libraries with apps instead of having the OS do that, you know why? because it works. I don't see you arguing against Microsoft for not taking control of the library dependency problem. I can only assume it's bias, and considering your tone and ignorance throughout these pages, I'm not sure anyone can argue with you, not because of a lack of valid points, but because you don't bring anything worthwhile to the table or actually are part of a conversation.

Edited April 12, 2021 by m.vlad
added argument

[Renzatic]

10 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

That is entirely untrue. A few years ago I had a commercial Linux app which would only run on RedHat. No amount of trickery could get it to run on Debian or Fedora or even Oracle Linux. I have over 20 years experience with UNIX and Linux, I know quite a few tricks. I was stumped. Deep down there was something different which the installer was looking for.

If it ran on Redhat, it should've run on Fedora, since it's effectively tomorrow's version thereof.

The only time I actually had any trouble installing an app was with those two programs I mentioned above. Substance Painter and Designer are targeted towards Redhat/CentOS users, and thus only comes in .rpm files. Pop, being Debian based, can't install .rpm files natively, so I had to convert them to .debs.

Was it a pain in the ass? Oh, yes. Even though things are considerably more user friendly than they've ever been in Linux land, there are still occasions where you have to get down and dirty with the nerdy to get something working. But I was able to get it work, and it performed fine afterwards. 

 

[Renzatic]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Aren't these Steam apps?

I have access to them on Steam, and they install instantly there. Thing is, I hate having to open Steam every time I want to launch a program. There's always someone there who starts spamming me with messages every time I open it up.

[Renzatic]

3 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Yes, the magic words "should have". It didn't.

What program was it?

[m.vlad]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Err, you can go to Statcounter and get the figures based on 3 million web sites. We are talking about desktop apps here, so if Linux users aren't using a browser in this day and age, what are they using their desktops for?

Statcounter isn't reliable since adblockers and agent spoofers are a thing. and even then, an overall market share does not denote the market share for a design app.

12 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

Aren't these Steam apps?

They are on steam, that doesn't make them steam apps.

14 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

That is entirely untrue. A few years ago I had a commercial Linux app which would only run on RedHat. No amount of trickery could get it to run on Debian or Fedora or even Oracle Linux. I have over 20 years experience with UNIX and Linux, I know quite a few tricks. I was stumped. Deep down there was something different which the installer was looking for.

That sounds like a problem with that specific app rather than with the ecosystem as a whole. I don't blame the entire windows os family for not being able to run a specific game or app.

[m.vlad]

1 minute ago, LondonSquirrel said:

That statement is also true for Windows and Mac. Get over it: Linux on the desktop is about 1% of market share.

Yes, which is why I said statcounter as a whole and not just linux' stats on statcounter. Plus I'd wager design people are slightly more tech literate on average than the average consumer, so the chances of designers using ad blockers are higher than non designer people, but I don't have any stats for this.

[Renzatic]

7 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

NetApp Data Fabric Manager.

From what I can find, it's looks like a program that's geared more towards general Linux usage than a specific OS. It might've been a problem back when, but things are more than likely better today.

[Vex]

On 4/12/2021 at 6:54 AM, m.vlad said:

They are on steam, that doesn't make them steam apps.

Just going to throw this out there - apps that are published through Steam can make use of Valve's own Proton layer, which makes it possible to access DirectX and other APIs that are otherwise unavailable in WINE. It's kind of like how GOG figured out how to package DOSBox with old computer games, preconfigured to work with each specific game. AFAIK Valve does work directly with publishers whose software is popular enough for them to invest their resources in the compatibility layer.

My husband tried running Publisher last night in WINE on Arch Linux, including running it through Proton, and ran into a failure from one of Affinity's internal libraries. Obviously there's more to making an application work through Proton (or WINE), but releasing through Steam might be a route for both Linux compatibility (which it doesn't sound like the company cares too much about, after skimming this thread), and expanding Affinity's market reach (which maybe they do care about) through publishing and advertising on Steam.

There are a lot of video game tools on Steam, and I think Affinity's apps would appeal to a lot of video game designers and artists out there who spend their time and money on the Steam store.

[wonderings]

On 4/12/2021 at 9:58 AM, m.vlad said:

Yes, which is why I said statcounter as a whole and not just linux' stats on statcounter. Plus I'd wager design people are slightly more tech literate on average than the average consumer, so the chances of designers using ad blockers are higher than non designer people, but I don't have any stats for this.

Think I would disagree with you on designers being more tech literate, at least from my own experience. I have found designers can do some great things with the apps they use but it generally ends there, and that is the good designers who know how to design for the medium they are designing for. 

[B-Interactive]

On 3/19/2021 at 11:32 PM, Bachu said:

Though stats say one thing, there are people such as me, than can't move from OS because we don't have the apps we need.

I've been using OSX for the last 12 years. First with a mac, and 6 years ago I added a hackintosh. Why? Price
Why do I keep using OSX > I'm used to it, it's shortcuts, functions, etc., but I dislike new versions and it has been a tendency through out the latest versions.

I would love to switch and start using Ubuntu as my daily OS, but I can't. Im a web developer and graphic designer. I use Adobe illustrator almost every day. 
Adobe isn't aiming to work for Linux, and I'm searching for options. If Affinity suite was available with Linux, I would have changed inmediately to it... 

During 18 years working in design, I never meet anyone using Affinity. Adobe or Corel are the common options. 

I think decisions are made according to the stats you see, but are not keeping in mind that they could become THE OPTION in linux.

 

Bachu raises a really valid point here.  Looking at current market share is only part of the picture.  If it weren't for Adobe only supporting OSX/Windows and Adobe being such an integral part of my workflow, I would have been on Linux a long time ago.

The balance is shifting though.  People are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with big tech and they're looking for alternatives.  It's precisely the reason people jump to Affinity.  It's not an easy thing to buck the trend in a market so completely dominated by Adobe, but users of Affinity products are doing just that.

My workstation is Linux (Arch/Endeavour OS).  I have been able to migrate my creative and development workflow to this system, through a process of gradually exchanging the Adobe products I require with alternatives under Windows, such as Davinci Resolve, then finally making the OS transition to Linux.

The only thing yet accounted for is Affinity Photo.  It's the only reason I have VirtualBox installed running Windows.  Performance is not ideal and it doesn't detect my video card so there's no GPU acceleration.  Affinity Photo is officially on my seeking a Linux capable alternative list.


 

[Vex]

9 hours ago, B-Interactive said:

Bachu raises a really valid point here.  Looking at current market share is only part of the picture.  If it weren't for Adobe only supporting OSX/Windows and Adobe being such an integral part of my workflow, I would have been on Linux a long time ago.

The balance is shifting though.  People are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with big tech and they're looking for alternatives.  It's precisely the reason people jump to Affinity.  It's not an easy thing to buck the trend in a market so completely dominated by Adobe, but users of Affinity products are doing just that.

My workstation is Linux (Arch/Endeavour OS).  I have been able to migrate my creative and development workflow to this system, through a process of gradually exchanging the Adobe products I require with alternatives under Windows, such as Davinci Resolve, then finally making the OS transition to Linux.

The only thing yet accounted for is Affinity Photo.  It's the only reason I have VirtualBox installed running Windows.  Performance is not ideal and it doesn't detect my video card so there's no GPU acceleration.  Affinity Photo is officially on my seeking a Linux capable alternative list.

Agreed on all counts. Adobe is prohibitively expensive for hobbyists, prosumers, and people looking to make a little side income. Average, non-tech people are becoming increasingly disenchanted with expensive products published by big tech companies. I decided to buy the Affinity suite for PC (haven't decided if I also need the Mac version since I use both platforms) because it seems like the first viable alternative to the Adobe ecosystem.

If I'm not mistaken, the UI uses Qt, so I am a little curious as to what components would have to be completely re-engineered.

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, ClairelyClaire said:

If I'm not mistaken, the UI uses Qt, so I am a little curious as to what components would have to be completely re-engineered.

Qt? Nah, then it would be a no brainer at least for the frontend UI part.

[Snapseed]

On 4/23/2021 at 6:00 PM, ClairelyClaire said:

Just going to throw this out there - apps that are published through Steam can make use of Valve's own Proton layer, which makes it possible to access DirectX and other APIs that are otherwise unavailable in WINE. It's kind of like how GOG figured out how to package DOSBox with old computer games, preconfigured to work with each specific game. AFAIK Valve does work directly with publishers whose software is popular enough for them to invest their resources in the compatibility layer.

My husband tried running Publisher last night in WINE on Arch Linux, including running it through Proton, and ran into a failure from one of Affinity's internal libraries. Obviously there's more to making an application work through Proton (or WINE), but releasing through Steam might be a route for both Linux compatibility (which it doesn't sound like the company cares too much about, after skimming this thread), and expanding Affinity's market reach (which maybe they do care about) through publishing and advertising on Steam.

There are a lot of video game tools on Steam, and I think Affinity's apps would appeal to a lot of video game designers and artists out there who spend their time and money on the Steam store.

There are some native Linux alternatives out there to try out including VivaDesigner, PageStream and Scribus with the first two being paid-for.

11 hours ago, B-Interactive said:

 

Bachu raises a really valid point here.  Looking at current market share is only part of the picture.  If it weren't for Adobe only supporting OSX/Windows and Adobe being such an integral part of my workflow, I would have been on Linux a long time ago.

The balance is shifting though.  People are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with big tech and they're looking for alternatives.  It's precisely the reason people jump to Affinity.  It's not an easy thing to buck the trend in a market so completely dominated by Adobe, but users of Affinity products are doing just that.

My workstation is Linux (Arch/Endeavour OS).  I have been able to migrate my creative and development workflow to this system, through a process of gradually exchanging the Adobe products I require with alternatives under Windows, such as Davinci Resolve, then finally making the OS transition to Linux.The only thing yet accounted for is Affinity Photo.  It's the only reason I have VirtualBox installed running Windows.  Performance is not ideal and it doesn't detect my video card so there's no GPU acceleration.  Affinity Photo is officially on my seeking a Linux capable alternative list.

 

The best that can be practically hoped for right now is that it can be made to work with Wine/Crossover at some future stage. In the meantime, there's the Adobe Photoshop Elements equivalent that is the native Linux Pixeluvo software (I have this) and the full Adobe Photoshop equivalent that is PhotolLine with Wine (it gets a Platinum rating for working so well with Wine). There are a couple of introductory guides out there for PhotoLine in English:

http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/PhotoLine/downloads/PhotoLineTutorial.pdf

http://evrencomert.com/PhotoLine.htm

There are images of Pixeluvo (top) and PhotoLine (bottom) below:

 

[wonderings]

On 4/25/2021 at 12:53 AM, B-Interactive said:

 

Bachu raises a really valid point here.  Looking at current market share is only part of the picture.  If it weren't for Adobe only supporting OSX/Windows and Adobe being such an integral part of my workflow, I would have been on Linux a long time ago.

The balance is shifting though.  People are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with big tech and they're looking for alternatives.  It's precisely the reason people jump to Affinity.  It's not an easy thing to buck the trend in a market so completely dominated by Adobe, but users of Affinity products are doing just that.

My workstation is Linux (Arch/Endeavour OS).  I have been able to migrate my creative and development workflow to this system, through a process of gradually exchanging the Adobe products I require with alternatives under Windows, such as Davinci Resolve, then finally making the OS transition to Linux.

The only thing yet accounted for is Affinity Photo.  It's the only reason I have VirtualBox installed running Windows.  Performance is not ideal and it doesn't detect my video card so there's no GPU acceleration.  Affinity Photo is officially on my seeking a Linux capable alternative list.


 

Are people really that dissatisfied? I know in some ways I am not happy with Apple's direction but they keep on selling and keep on raising the price and keep on selling. I would say the same with Adobe, their user numbers are not dropping, I believe they are actually rising. The software is not priced for hobbyists, these are pro level applications made for professionals who make their living with the software. Affinity fits really well in that hobbyist segment offering amazing features for a really great price and some can even use it professionally. 

I am curious about VirtualBox, I know the software, never used it though. Is the performance because of VirtualBox or do all (assuming there is more software for virtualization) VM software run bad on Linux? I run Parallels on my Mac and have done so for years and it runs amazingly well. 

[m.vlad]

Just now, wonderings said:

Are people really that dissatisfied? I know in some ways I am not happy with Apple's direction but they keep on selling and keep on raising the price and keep on selling. I would say the same with Adobe, their user numbers are not dropping, I believe they are actually rising. The software is not priced for hobbyists, these are pro level applications made for professionals who make their living with the software. Affinity fits really well in that hobbyist segment offering amazing features for a really great price and some can even use it professionally.

I am curious about VirtualBox, I know the software, never used it though. Is the performance because of VirtualBox or do all (assuming there is more software for virtualization) VM software run bad on Linux? I run Parallels on my Mac and have done so for years and it runs amazingly well.

There's still the matter of having an entire copy of windows installed for a single app. But yes, it should be more feasible now that Nvidia allows GPU passthrough instead of having to mess with the driver or boot initialization stuff to have a working gpu passthrough setup.

[B-Interactive]

32 minutes ago, wonderings said:

Are people really that dissatisfied? I know in some ways I am not happy with Apple's direction but they keep on selling and keep on raising the price and keep on selling. I would say the same with Adobe, their user numbers are not dropping, I believe they are actually rising.

@wonderings, I think this speaks to my point about how hard it is to buck the trend.  It's an industry that is saturated by Adobe, so if one wants to exist within that industry, then it's likely, if not often necessary that they go with the flow.

Fortunately for Serif, some have bucked the trend.  That we're here as a community of Affinity users, might be considered some degree of evidence that people are dissatisfied with big tech.

 

45 minutes ago, wonderings said:

I am curious about VirtualBox, I know the software, never used it though. Is the performance because of VirtualBox or do all (assuming there is more software for virtualization) VM software run bad on Linux? I run Parallels on my Mac and have done so for years and it runs amazingly well. 

If VirtualBox gets GPU pass-through support, I expect that'd make a huge difference.  As it is, Affinity Photo is forced into software mode which is throwing away a significant portion of my systems potential.  I don't believe that's a Linux limitation.  If you ran VirtualBox on OSX, presumably it'd be the same issue.  VMWare Workstation Player may be an option I look into though as it at least appears to have better GPU support.

[wonderings]

4 minutes ago, B-Interactive said:

@wonderings, I think this speaks to my point about how hard it is to buck the trend.  It's an industry that is saturated by Adobe, so if one wants to exist within that industry, then it's likely, if not often necessary that they go with the flow.

Fortunately for Serif, some have bucked the trend.  That we're here as a community of Affinity users, might be considered some degree of evidence that people are dissatisfied with big tech.

 

If VirtualBox gets GPU pass-through support, I expect that'd make a huge difference.  As it is, Affinity Photo is forced into software mode which is throwing away a significant portion of my systems potential.  I don't believe that's a Linux limitation.  If you ran VirtualBox on OSX, presumably it'd be the same issue.  VMWare Workstation Player may be an option I look into though as it at least appears to have better GPU support.

I think people do not want to buck the trend, I don't. I like where we are with a standard in my industry (print and graphic design). The issues I see all come when people create in software other than Adobe. Be it Canva, Microsoft, GIMP, or whatever else people find. These create headaches to get to work. Some are simpler then others. Last week I had a 72 page brochure come in that was all set in Excel. Now this is an extreme example and thankfully not the norm but boy was that fun fixing up to try and use what they had rather then completely reset from scratch. People can do weird things with Adobe as well but those are much more manageable and easier to fix and figure out. For home use if I did not have my Adobe account I would be using Affinity without a doubt. I have a 44" wide format printer at home that I am going to start selling posters on the side from and if needed Affinity would work fine for that light use. But if I had a choice I would stay with Adobe for familiarity and knowing it is the standard almost everyone uses on top of it being good software and feature rich. 

[Vex]

2 hours ago, wonderings said:

Are people really that dissatisfied? I know in some ways I am not happy with Apple's direction but they keep on selling and keep on raising the price and keep on selling. I would say the same with Adobe, their user numbers are not dropping, I believe they are actually rising. The software is not priced for hobbyists, these are pro level applications made for professionals who make their living with the software. Affinity fits really well in that hobbyist segment offering amazing features for a really great price and some can even use it professionally. 

"These are pro apps" seems to be Adobe's business model. It's silly, because anyone who takes a college-level or post-secondary class in graphic design (of any kind) is going to be taught Adobe's apps, which means they have become the de facto hobbyist/prosumer platform. Rather than embrace that, as other publishers have, they've stubbornly refused to offer any real options for people who don't have business expense accounts or the ability to write off the subscription as a business expense. (I say "real," because their Elements line is nowhere near the functionality of CC.)

The Affinity suite is definitely a much better option for prosumers, but is still sort of expensive for hobbyists (at full price; the current 50% off pricing I think is affordable for just about everyone).

There is a general growing dissatisfaction with corporate tech. Whether or not that will extend to Adobe in the long term remains to be seen. Like Microsoft, their software bread and butter is in the enterprise, government, and education markets - all well-known to take a long time to adopt new platforms and technologies.

Quote

I am curious about VirtualBox, I know the software, never used it though. Is the performance because of VirtualBox or do all (assuming there is more software for virtualization) VM software run bad on Linux? I run Parallels on my Mac and have done so for years and it runs amazingly well. 

VirtualBox and any other virtualization software can slow down your machine simply because of how much overhead is required to run a complete second operating system on top of your host OS. Modern computers make this a lot easier - both Intel and AMD offer hardware virtualization capabilities which make VMs much faster and more efficient than ever.

WINE (and Proton, which is built on WINE) aren't emulators, though. WINE is essentially a shim layer between all the libraries (DLLs) and resources in Windows, and the application you're trying to run. There are certain Windows APIs that can't be shimmed for whatever reason, so if Affinity's apps use any of those exclusive APIs, compatibility with WINE might be more difficult.

[wonderings]

1 hour ago, ClairelyClaire said:

"These are pro apps" seems to be Adobe's business model. It's silly, because anyone who takes a college-level or post-secondary class in graphic design (of any kind) is going to be taught Adobe's apps, which means they have become the de facto hobbyist/prosumer platform. Rather than embrace that, as other publishers have, they've stubbornly refused to offer any real options for people who don't have business expense accounts or the ability to write off the subscription as a business expense. (I say "real," because their Elements line is nowhere near the functionality of CC.)

The Affinity suite is definitely a much better option for prosumers, but is still sort of expensive for hobbyists (at full price; the current 50% off pricing I think is affordable for just about everyone).

There is a general growing dissatisfaction with corporate tech. Whether or not that will extend to Adobe in the long term remains to be seen. Like Microsoft, their software bread and butter is in the enterprise, government, and education markets - all well-known to take a long time to adopt new platforms and technologies.

VirtualBox and any other virtualization software can slow down your machine simply because of how much overhead is required to run a complete second operating system on top of your host OS. Modern computers make this a lot easier - both Intel and AMD offer hardware virtualization capabilities which make VMs much faster and more efficient than ever.

WINE (and Proton, which is built on WINE) aren't emulators, though. WINE is essentially a shim layer between all the libraries (DLLs) and resources in Windows, and the application you're trying to run. There are certain Windows APIs that can't be shimmed for whatever reason, so if Affinity's apps use any of those exclusive APIs, compatibility with WINE might be more difficult.

Standardization makes the industry hum along, if everyone was using different applications it would be a nightmare. Schools teach it for a few reasons, one which I would think is the main reason is it is the standard. I am sure they get some kick backs from Adobe as well as it is in Adobes interest to keep people using their software. At a pro level I want a standard and to know I can count on files not having silly weirdness to it which happens when people bring in files created in other programs (not all the time but enough). With Adobe positioned in the mainstream for pro use I do not see why they would want to try and go after the home user. 

I think the Affinity applications are very affordable for anyone who wants software that operates at the level it does. It is feature rich and many features in the pro area where you could make a living with the software. Will all the cheap or free applications out there it has made people expect to get a lot for practically nothing. There is a reason people are asking for all sorts of software for Affinity to start developing it is because they are wanting something powerful for cheap. The ability to manipulate photos or do vector work or page layout with so many features and options should not be cheap and to expect software with the amount of features in it that Affinity has is just greedy on the users part I think, wanting all for next to nothing. You are getting a lot for your dollar with Affinity. 

[Vex]

3 minutes ago, wonderings said:

Standardization makes the industry hum along, if everyone was using different applications it would be a nightmare. Schools teach it for a few reasons, one which I would think is the main reason is it is the standard. I am sure they get some kick backs from Adobe as well as it is in Adobes interest to keep people using their software. At a pro level I want a standard and to know I can count on files not having silly weirdness to it which happens when people bring in files created in other programs (not all the time but enough). With Adobe positioned in the mainstream for pro use I do not see why they would want to try and go after the home user. 

Because the home user is willing to give them money if the price is right, and there's precious little reason to not offer an affordable option.

To be super clear here: I really am impressed so far with Affinity's products. The use of Qt instead of native UI chrome is sort of a hindrance (AFAIK AppleScript can't interact with the UI very much), but it definitely gives Adobe's apps a run for their money for a lot of stuff (not everything...I'm still learning).

Optimally, there should be competition rather than monolithic platforms that keep you closely tied to a single company's ecosystem in perpetuity. Standard formats are awesome and make things exchangeable between platforms. In the vector world, SVG and EPS are both good alternatives that allow you preserve most fidelity and maintain portability between apps and platforms.

There isn't a similar format for desktop publishing software like InDesign and Publisher. That's probably been one of the biggest hindrances.

Honestly, a format that builds on EPUB might make the most sense - something that uses HTML and CSS on the backend (which makes it absurdly easy to script an entire layout in your chosen language), but adds more special sauce to do page layouts and physical units (i.e. mm and inch). Pack all that up into an archive format (which what EPUB does), and you've got yourself a portable layout/publishing format.

Obviously Adobe wants you to use their formats, but they've been forced by the industry to support a wide variety of portable/standardized vector formats, because those formats already exist. If the same were to be possible with Photoshop/APhoto and InDesign/APub, portability between Adobe and Affinity might be more feasible.

[m.vlad]

25 minutes ago, wonderings said:

Standardization makes the industry hum along, if everyone was using different applications it would be a nightmare. Schools teach it for a few reasons, one which I would think is the main reason is it is the standard. I am sure they get some kick backs from Adobe as well as it is in Adobes interest to keep people using their software. At a pro level I want a standard and to know I can count on files not having silly weirdness to it which happens when people bring in files created in other programs (not all the time but enough). With Adobe positioned in the mainstream for pro use I do not see why they would want to try and go after the home user.

That's why you standardize the file format, not the application itself, so that even cheaper software can touch on files like that. For now PSD is the format that is mostly used by everyone for anything when it comes to design (not including brochure design and the like, but even there there's the open format that adobe can export to and affinity can import). Although, sadly, affinity also falls into this pitfall, where the .af file format is not open at all outside the application itself, and PSD export still isn't good since text gets rasterized. but this is a talk for another time.

10 minutes ago, ClairelyClaire said:

There isn't a similar format for desktop publishing software like InDesign and Publisher. That's probably been one of the biggest hindrances.

There is IDML, which affinity can import (but not export to) which is more or less XML I think?