The forum has already various prophecies like "the company would not long endure" – most of them emotional guessing and rather worthless. ![]() On the other hand they can easily make use of a special existing skill, regardless of "most users", as for instance astrophotography. If a company lacks in a certain skill they are forced to move the related aspect to the background. As mentioned: desires, needs, skills + costs are considered for development decisions. To me it is rather obvious that more aspects than just "most users" need to be considered for development decisions. Why? It should be obvious to everyone that if Serif did not pay attention to what the majority of their existing & potential user base wanted the company would not long endure. idml in APub is definitely useful, although Affinity fails to convert ID's Global Layers bug free. It appears really weird to emphasize possible "limited goodwill" for a backwards conversion unless it would be "completely bug free" … if you consider the amount of existing bugs in V1 users are forced to live with, partially since years, and partially transferred as V2 bugs. ![]() "I feel like I could guarantee" that people would prefer to be able to open V2 files in V1 applications with certain restrictions if the only alternative for them is not to be able to open them at all. Thus backwards compatibility simply did not matter in V1 – but definitely does in V2.īesides, I suspect that unless the save in V1 format option was itself completely bug free & did not break anything V1 supported, the goodwill would be quite limited.Īgain, same argument: Would you, Serif or most Affinity users in fact rather waive the ability to open PSD or INDD/IDML documents than live with the current limitation when using them? As far I see the complaints about conversion issues are less than requests for the according features being implemented in Affinity. Note, all the previous updates could be installed without any additional consequences apart from backwards compatibility. The consequence that the increased system requirements may necessitate a different operating system, at least on the Mac, makes switching from Affinity V1 to V2 nowhere near as simple as all previous v1.x updates. In view of this new conditions in V2, the thought "V2 simply carries on that behaviour" is simply not correct. Neither did the steps between various 1.x versions mean a separate app installation or require a separate purchase nor did they have increased system requirements. V2 simply carries on that behavior, and 1.x cannot open 2.x files.Ī comparison between the behaviour of V1 and V2 in terms of backward compatibility does not reflect the whole reality and seems somewhat distorted: The Affinity Suite has never provided backward compatibility.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |