1.7.x file format

[rolfbe]

released version 1.6.5.123 can't read .aphoto file saved with 1.7.0.188, has the fileformat changed? The file is a focus stack of 41 jpgs.

thx Rolf

[Move Along People]

-

[Chris_K]

hi rolfbe

As haakoo points to newer versions contain newer features so the file cannot be opened by an older version. Cheers

[TEcHNOpls]

The changes to, for example HSL layer seem to justify this.

[Steps]

While backward compatibility (new software can open older format) for software is pretty normal and expected by users forward compatibility (old software can open newer format) is achieved by some rare products and has proven to be often come with serious drawbacks. It's usually also a time-consuming hassle to implement this. So it's fair and legit not to support it in my opinion.

[Jeroen]

Fair enough that there is no forward compatibility from 1.6,  but will there be backward compatibility from 1.7 for the 1.7 beta format? Is there any stated policy on that?

[Alfred]

5 minutes ago, Jeroen said:

Fair enough that there is no forward compatibility from 1.6,  but will there be backward compatibility from 1.7 for the 1.7 beta format? Is there any stated policy on that?

If (and only if) the file format doesn’t change before release, you will be able to open your beta version 1.7 files in retail version 1.7.

[Jeroen]

Just now, Alfred said:

If (and only if) the file format doesn’t change before release, you will be able to open your beta version 1.7 files in retail version 1.7.

I do get that, my question is if Serif has stated any policy on the stability of the 1.7 (beta) format. 

[Alfred]

3 minutes ago, Jeroen said:

I do get that, my question is if Serif has stated any policy on the stability of the 1.7 (beta) format. 

I think we can take it as read that the developers will try to avoid changing the file format if at all possible.

[Jeroen]

1 minute ago, Alfred said:

My apologies. I didn’t understand that you were asking about stability rather than compatibility.

I now see that my question was ambiguous. Now that its meaning is cleared up, hopefully we will have an answer from Serif. 

I would really like to start using 1.7 beta for my private work, even if the answer would be "We expect no change, but no guarantees". Less than that, I would not take the risk, however much I like 1.7 beta.

[Alfred]

5 minutes ago, Jeroen said:

I now see that my question was ambiguous.

As you’ll see from my quick edit — obviously not quick enough! — it dawned on me right after I posted that you meant stability of the format rather than stability of the app. 

I think your "We expect no change, but no guarantees" neatly sums up what Serif staff have always said about beta version file formats.

[Fritz_H]

Hi all,

Since Serif offers its products as purchase and not as subscription (thanks for that BTW!),
I wonder if a regular change of File-Type (causing compatibility-issues..)
might be a way to "invite" Clients to purchase Updates...?

Fritz

[Patrick Connor]

Fritz, no

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, Fritz_H said:

to purchase Updates

??? Update 1.000 to 1.999 it's free.

[Fritz_H]

16 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

??? Update 1.000 to 1.999 it's free.

...and what about Version 2.0?

kind regards
Fritz

[Jeroen]

1 minute ago, Fritz_H said:

...and what about Version 2.0?

kind regards
Fritz

 

Minor upgrades are free as per stated policy, major upgrades will probable be charged (but likely there will be an upgrade option for existing customers). See https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/53939-how-long-until-we-have-to-buy-a-new-version/

Entirely reasonable in my opinion, with a number of years between major versions an considering the price/quality of the software.

[Alfred]

3 minutes ago, Fritz_H said:

...and what about Version 2.0?

kind regards
Fritz

What about version 2.0? We’ll have to pay for it if we want the new features, but purchase won’t be mandatory. Version 1.x will keep working.

[Alfred]

1 minute ago, Jeroen said:

likely there will be an upgrade option for existing customers

I have my doubts about that. Users of Serif DrawPlus X8 were promised that there would be upgrade pricing when the Windows version was released, but it didn’t happen. Instead, everyone got the same launch offer regardless of whether or not they were existing customers.

Serif only know the identities of their Affinity Store customers, so any offers targeted at known customers would mean Mac App Store customers losing out.

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, Fritz_H said:

and what about Version 2.0?

It is not "Update" (free), but "Upgrade" (paid).

[Fritz_H]

5 hours ago, Alfred said:

What about version 2.0? We’ll have to pay for it if we want the new features, but purchase won’t be mandatory. Version 1.x will keep working.

@Alfred true, but if Version >= 2.0 has no "save/export as 1.x " - Option, all Customers with Version 1.x are f....  left alone.

Fritz

[Fritz_H]

3 hours ago, Pšenda said:

It is not "Update" (free), but "Upgrade" (paid).

@Pšenda I am not worried about costs (well, not primarily..) but about compatibility in case Version 2.x+ does not offer a "Save as 1.x"-Option...

kind regards
Fritz

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, Fritz_H said:

@Pšenda I am not worried about costs (well, not primarily..) but about compatibility in case Version 2.x+ does not offer a "Save as 1.x"-Option...

kind regards
Fritz

So you will live for many years in fear - honest condolences :-) 

[Mark Ingram]

Interesting discussion - but completely off-topic here in the beta forum.

A few things:

1) Using the beta for "real" work isn't recommended, see the beta announcement posts

2) We don't change the file format unless we have to, we make no guarantees about it's format, other than you will be able to open documents from older versions

3) Breaking file format to encourage people to upgrade is a terrible idea

4) Upgrades are free (for version 1.x), so far that's been around 4.5 years worth of free updates

5) We've made no announcements with regards to future versions, let alone future pricing strategies

 

To move this post back to the original question, it's entirely possible that 1.6 can't open a 1.7 document (especially a 1.7 beta document), so this isn't a bug.