←back to thread

Affinity Studio now free

(www.affinity.studio)
1199 points dagmx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nirava ◴[] No.45763101[source]
This is a deletion.

- they're completely stopping all updates to v2; even image trace won't be coming to it. You might have paid for perpetual access to it 2 months ago, but it has completely stopped. As the world moves on (new chips, new OS features, just general software movement) this will increasingly feel like a second-class experience.

- the new "free" software is a sales funnel into the paid subscription, and will also increasingly have that "second-class" feeling as new pro-only things are added to it. it is also practically guaranteed to feed your work into AI unless you buy pro sometime in the next 5 years

In short, something secure, top class, the "best the company offers" product doesn't exist anymore. What was once there isn't.

replies(9): >>45763725 #>>45763760 #>>45763929 #>>45764353 #>>45764429 #>>45764558 #>>45764913 #>>45765719 #>>45770848 #
ezfe ◴[] No.45764353[source]
Isn't this EXACTLY what subscriptions fix, though? That you can stop paying if the product stops getting updates.

Everyone wanted a one time license, you aren't allowed to complain when that one-time licensed product stops getting updates.

Note: I own a license to V2 of the Serif suite.

replies(10): >>45764406 #>>45764616 #>>45764628 #>>45765067 #>>45765620 #>>45766210 #>>45769201 #>>45769885 #>>45772049 #>>45775101 #
chemotaxis ◴[] No.45764616[source]
> Isn't this EXACTLY what subscriptions fix, though? That you can stop paying if the product stops getting updates.

How? First, by that time, you've usually spent many times more than it would have cost you to own the software outright, so the vendor is already better off. Second, if you stop paying, you lose access to the software, possibly with no other way to open existing files, etc. You're the one who's being held hostage - not the vendor.

As a hobbyist, I shudder to think that my total annual bill would be if all the software I use every now and then had a subscription model. It would be well in excess of $5,000/year.

replies(1): >>45764872 #
ezfe ◴[] No.45764872[source]
Sure, if the subscription is unreasonably priced. Then yes, it will be unreasonable.

Final Cut Pro is a $300 piece of software with a $50/yr or $5/mo subscription. It would take you 6 years to reach the same price which shows the subscription cost is reasonable.

It's a separate issue when software is unreasonably priced in subscription mode, versus the merits of the subscription model itself.

replies(3): >>45766188 #>>45766380 #>>45770986 #
roywiggins ◴[] No.45766380[source]
All of my photos are stored in a big Lightroom database. If I wasn't using an old camera supported by Lightroom 5 (that I bought outright in 2011), and was using modern Lightroom instead, I would have to pay an ongoing cost just to maintain access to my photo database, in perpetuity.

This sucks no matter how much the subscription actually is right now. Losing access to all your old work in its original format if you don't pay a subscription to a company that might decide to do anything, up to and including shutting down the servers and killing the app? No thank you.

Yeah, Lightroom 5 hasn't had any updates, doesn't support any new cameras, etc. But it still works, I can still look at all the photos I took with my old camera, and all my edits, and this will work, for free, until Lightroom 5 bitrots away into not working on Windows 14 or whatever.

It sucks that I can't just buy a new version of Lightroom when I get a new camera, instead I'd have to jump ship or sell my soul to Adobe.

replies(2): >>45767113 #>>45767355 #
ezfe ◴[] No.45767355[source]
I understand what you're saying, and yeah, that does suck.

> Losing access to all your old work in its original format

Most photo editing apps retain your originals, even when they're in a database. For example, Apple Photos has a folder full of originals with no modifications. Does Lightroom not have this?

I understand that there is a lot of metadata that you also want, I'm just curious about this detail?

replies(2): >>45768056 #>>45771653 #
1. saurik ◴[] No.45771653[source]
I think the modifications here are the "original work" in question. Like, I would be wanting to save the thing I spent a lot of time myself working on -- the edits to the photos -- in their "original format": the way Lightroom is dealing with it as modifications on top of raw photos.