CorelDRAW - Version Upgrades Going Bye Bye, Subscription-Only Soon

[Jim Hill]

The last offer they made me was to upgrade for $169.99
I wonder how it's going getting people to upgrade first then start paying monthly?

The cost to be in business in Canada is very expensive for everyone doing business there.

In my opinion the Big Winner in the tariff battles with China will be Mexico because of it's close proximity to the US border. Companies realize it was a big mistake to set up a company there and then have to ship all their products back to the USA.

Canada is just do expensive to move a company to and set up a business there.

Jim

 

[Bobby H]

If the sale of Corel from Vector Capital over to KKR goes through the end result will likely be Corel having over a $1 billion worth of debt added to its balance sheet. And that will give the new owners (another "vulture capital" company) more incentive to try various, possibly destructive schemes in attempts to either slash operating costs or attempt to goose profits. This new upgrade policy nonsense obviously falls in the latter category. The company is playing chicken with its user base, betting the users will "turn" and go along with the new program rather than just saying buh-bye for now.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

There is one thing in their favor.

Vendor lock in.

Depending on how many files that a particular user has that are still mainly the DRAW file format. Their workflow pipeline of assets that only work in DRAW, hell, just their general workflow that they would have to relearn for another program. Doesn't matter if the reasons for the lock in are real or imagined, that's still a pretty powerful pull to keep them in the "family".

How many people that didn't like the direction that programs were going in, but still purchased/subscribed/whatever and continued on with the program?

It's how big that user base is, that will determine how long (if at all) Corel will last.

Of course, if the alternatives follow a certain dev model, it's quite possible that they would be bought out by one of the other companies that people are moving away from (especially if that alternative program's user base gets "so big"), which brings them back full circle.

 

[Bobby H]

Corel doesn't have as much "Vendor Lock-In" hanging over its user base as it might think. Corel needs those users far more than the users need Corel. The important thing is no CorelDRAW user is under any obligation to keep upgrading to the latest version. They can keep using an old version, even if that means a worst case scenario of running it on an older OS either on an old PC or within a virtual machine.

IMHO, Corel doesn't really know the make-up of its user base very well. They think they're on some kind of equal footing with Adobe in regard to professional users -people who have actual full time jobs doing graphic design work. Otherwise they wouldn't try this hair-brained attempt to strong-arm the CorelDRAW user base over upgrades. Corel isn't remotely an equal to Adobe. Big companies and ad agencies don't exchange graphics assets in CDR format. It's PDF, AI and EPS -basically Adobe stuff. Adobe dominates much of the professional graphics market while Corel continues to have good foot-holds in niches like the sign industry.

A big part of Corel's customer base is casual/hobbyist users and non-artist office types who use the software in conjunction MS Office, Word Perfect or whatever. Users in those latter categories can switch to another alternative more easily than a full time graphics person. This new upgrade policy could be the thing that convinces them to do so. And there are lots of alternatives to CorelDRAW out there. Affinity Designer and several other low cost (or even free) alternatives will appeal to casual/hobbyist users who don't want to pay $200 per year just to use a drawing program.

One big thing that can harm a graphics software company's effect of Vendor Lock-In is a rival application's ability to open/import files saved in their format. This is one of the factors that makes Adobe's own effect of Vendor Lock-In pretty powerful. Rival applications, such as CorelDRAW, often stink at opening/importing artwork created in Adobe Illustrator. Some other drawing programs, including Inkscape, can import CorelDRAW CDR files. The big question is how accurate are these programs at importing the files?

In the end Corel's new upgrade policy is really just a wake-up call for CorelDRAW users to save back-up versions of their artwork in a more "open" or generic format, such as PDF or EPS. Such a practice would make it less painful to ditch CorelDRAW and migrate to a different application.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Corel doesn't have as much "Vendor Lock-In" hanging over its user base as it might think. Corel needs those users far more than the users need Corel. The important thing is no CorelDRAW user is under any obligation to keep upgrading to the latest version. They can keep using an old version, even if that means a worst case scenario of running it on an older OS either on an old PC or within a virtual machine.

This is why I said real or imagined, which this really applies to Adobe as well. The same alternatives that you mentioned for Corel, also apply to Adobe (I used to do the VM route until all my substitute programs were available on the new platform that I was using to replace Adobe).

Affinity Designer and several other low cost (or even free) alternatives will appeal to casual/hobbyist users who don't want to pay $200 per year just to use a drawing program.

The same appeal applies to Adobe users (or former users as well).

Price is only a portion of the issue. It's also control, or even less of it. I have no problem with spending $15k every 2-3 yrs (as the ROI makes up for it) in order to have far better control over my software compared to a subscription based software.

Plus, essentially being "bleeding edge" on Adobe's new CC upgrade schema, means that functionality that one depends on may be deprecated and/or removed at a moment's notice.

I should mention is that I believe it's a mistake to label professional/hobbyist etc based on the software that they use as the end all be all. That harkins back to my belief that the old ad hominem fallacy of "your not a professional unless you are using XXX" is still alive and well.

One big thing that can harm a graphics software company's effect of Vendor Lock-In is a rival application's ability to open/import files saved in their format. This is one of the factors that makes Adobe's own effect of Vendor Lock-In pretty powerful. Rival applications, such as CorelDRAW, often stink at opening/importing artwork created in Adobe Illustrator. Some other drawing programs, including Inkscape, can import CorelDRAW CDR files. The big question is how accurate are these programs at importing the files?

This is always what gets me is that people actually expect, even to a small degree that currently developed proprietary formats will open in competitors products.

Actually Inkscape and Affinity Designer can also open Ai files. Sometimes just having ghostscript installed helps inkscape, sometimes it's just renaming the .ai extension to .pdf.

One professional photographer who was moving away from Adobe compared importing Ai files in Affinity and in Inkscape. Inkscape actually did better. Both messed up on not having the correct fonts installed on the system, which is an issue that people may have (I've always had it despite using the various importing methods to work around it using even Ai, so it's an issue regardless of software).

In the end Corel's new upgrade policy is really just a wake-up call for CorelDRAW users to save back-up versions of their artwork in a more "open" or generic format, such as PDF or EPS. Such a practice would make it less painful to ditch CorelDRAW and migrate to a different application.

The above should be done regardless of the software being used, especially if the software is closed source using proprietary file formats.

Bottom line, this is a risk on any closed source program. I am not saying that the closed source program isn't worth being used or isn't damn good at what it does (nor am I saying that open source is the way to go, not just based on the mere fact that it's open source), but it comes with risks and these risks are becoming apparent (and actually "we" have seen some of these risks in previous years).

People should always have a "Plan B". What was good 20 yrs ago for "your" business may not still be good. Always have to be fluid in situations like this.

 

[Bobby H]

This is why I said real or imagined, which this really applies to Adobe as well. The same alternatives that you mentioned for Corel, also apply to Adobe.

No, it's not the same when it comes to Adobe. That would only be the case if CorelDRAW had an equal share of the professional graphics market with Adobe Illustrator. It doesn't. The lock-in issue with Adobe is more severe because many national companies build up their brand assets in Adobe's software. They're not afraid to utilize plenty of effects and features that are dependent on Adobe software. I've said many times before: CorelDRAW often sucks at opening artwork created in Adobe Illustrator. That even goes for the latest versions of CorelDRAW that offer full support of OpenType and other features like transparency effects in fills and gradients. This issue is one of the key reasons why we have Creative Cloud licenses in our shop. Ultimately it's easier and actually cheaper to just have Illustrator on hand for opening these kinds of files rather than having to waste a bunch of time manually repairing the elements of an AI or PDF file in CorelDRAW when it didn't import correctly. It's also a whole lot easier to "reverse engineer" a jacked-up PDF in Illustrator than it is to repair the artwork in CorelDRAW.

Most every rival vector drawing application out there will import Adobe Illustrator and/or PDF files to some degree. The import success rate drops big time if the Illustrator-based artwork has certain unique effects that aren't flattened/expanded to editable outlines.

I should mention is that I believe it's a mistake to label professional/hobbyist etc based on the software that they use as the end all be all. That harkins back to my belief that the old ad hominem fallacy of "your not a professional unless you are using XXX" is still alive and well.

I have a pretty simple standard on what makes someone a "professional" at their job: getting paid and making a living doing that kind of work. Formal training or a degree adds more to that "pro" image. That doesn't automatically mean every "pro" produces great quality work. The sign industry alone has no shortage of full time employed yet hack-level "designers" cranking out eye-sore garbage. Arial on Everything, squeeze or stretch it to fit the space. Meanwhile some amateurs can make some awesome creations. But they're still mostly working for free. It's pretty difficult for someone who is self-taught and not getting paid to justify blowing $650 per year on Adobe software. Likewise it's going to be difficult for those same people to justify blowing $200 per year just to use CorelDRAW. It's a whole lot easier paying the $54 per month for Adobe software when the purchase is being made through a company. The cost is an easy tax write-off as an operational expense. An amateur/hobbyist type can't get the same tax write-off.

The above should be done regardless of the software being used, especially if the software is closed source using proprietary file formats. Bottom line, this is a risk on any closed source program. I am not saying that the closed source program isn't worth being used or isn't damn good at what it does (nor am I saying that open source is the way to go, not just based on the mere fact that it's open source), but it comes with risks and these risks are becoming apparent (and actually "we" have seen some of these risks in previous years).

Just because a certain application is free/open source doesn't mean it or its file format will be supported forever. I think picking the strongest "common denominator" format, whether it's associated with a commercial application or "open," is the best way to go in picking a fall-back format to archive graphics assets. To me PDF currently looks like the most acceptable choice (despite the max art board size limits).

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Most every rival vector drawing application out there will import Adobe Illustrator and/or PDF files to some degree. The import success rate drops big time if the Illustrator-based artwork has certain unique effects that aren't flattened/expanded to editable outlines.

This applies to opening up Corel files as well.

One cannot or should not expect a proprietary file format to be opened up by another program with 100% success rate. It's just not logical to expect that.

Now, I'm a strong believer, as I have said numerous times, of having everything outlined or finalized to the upmost that one can still do and still have as much perks of it being vector as one can.

The point is not to be only beholding to the proprietary master file.

I have a pretty simple standard on what makes someone a "professional" at their job: getting paid and making a living doing that kind of work.

Then by this definition (which ironically is the same minimum threshold that I use as well) should be independent of whatever software or platform that they use.

It's pretty difficult for someone who is self-taught and not getting paid to justify blowing $650 per year on Adobe software. Likewise it's going to be difficult for those same people to justify blowing $200 per year just to use CorelDRAW. It's a whole lot easier paying the $54 per month for Adobe software when the purchase is being made through a company. The cost is an easy tax write-off as an operational expense. An amateur/hobbyist type can't get the same tax write-off.

See, this is cutting out a certain demographic of pro users though. The problem here with Corel and with how Adobe are doing this, isn't just about price. Price plays a part, in so much is that it's more cost, but it's also for less control. I come from a trade where commercial software starts at $3k and goes up to $15k. If this was solely based on price, I would be loving it. Adobe and Corel are dirt cheap. So it's all relative.


I don't like my business being dependent on inputs that I am losing more control as each year goes by.

Ironically, even you were complaining about a particular type of lack of control when it comes to the Mac version of Corel.

Just because a certain application is free/open source doesn't mean it or its file format will be supported forever. I think picking the strongest "common denominator" format, whether it's associated with a commercial application or "open," is the best way to go in picking a fall-back format to archive graphics assets. To me PDF currently looks like the most acceptable choice (despite the max art board size limits).

Again the main point is not only save one's file in the master, proprietary format. That's the key thing. While an open source format may not be supported in terms of new features and/or currently being developed, the chances of better reading of said format exist versus a closed source proprietary format.

But not always the case. For instance, SVG, which is an open standard of 2D graphics, Ai's opening of that format is limited and sucks.

And yes, just because it's open doesn't mean that it would be supported forever, but I can certainly use it much, much longer without having to go through the same hoops that I would have to go through with a closed source program. I'm able to run Blender 1.8 on a Win 7, 8, and 10 computers from a jump drive, but I have a closed source program that was mainly developed for Win 7 and on Win 8, I was having to manually move DLL files from the CD to the harddrive to get it to work. So that's a program version that is pre-'02 (ugly XP was a young buck back then having come out in '01) versus a program from 2010-2011, somewhere around there.

Also, yes functionality is also deprecated and removed from open source programs, but it's also easier for people to pick up that "abandoned" functionality and run with it. For instance, BGE has been deprecated and will be removed from the official release later this month (RC is due out the 11th of this month). UPBGE has picked up the slack and even has atleast one of the original BGE devs as well. Not a snow ball's chance in hell to get that to work in a closed source venue.

 

[Jim Hill]

What other software programs are there out there that might work to replace Corel in the future.

Jim

 

[WildWestDesigns]

What other software programs are there out there that might work to replace Corel in the future.

Jim

I think one of the most popular closed source alternatives that has a good reputation is Affinity Designer. Now, down the road, still have to worry about Adobe (especially) buying it out and more then likely "killing" it (Freehand anyone?), but I'm speculating there. Or even they go the subscription route eventually. They may not, but that's just a possibility that exists.

It does have a trial as well. Could spend the trial length and try to do some projects in it and see how it handles your workflow.

I think for open source, Inkscape is the one. Personally, I haven't found something that Ai did that Inkscape didn't do that I needed to use, but the booger was it did it in a different way. Which would apply to any alternative out there. Some wheren't as easy to figure out or understand why it's done that way, but it did work.

I think though with switching to any different program, the learning curve is going to be the booger and how much one is willing to put into that.

 

[GAC05]

What other software programs are there out there that might work to replace Corel in the future.

Jim

Xara has a common heritage with Corel and is a pretty tight little program. Not sure how well it plays with import and export of Ais and PDFs. I have an older version that I use off and on.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Xara has a common heritage with Corel and is pretty tight little program. Not sure how well it plays with import and export of Ais and PDFs. I have an older version that I use off and on.

I forgot about that one. I had used Xara Xtreme when it had Linux support (I think you can still get portable versions of it for Linux, just no longer supported officially).

 

[player]

With Corel, this would also mean moving to a different country as it's based out of Canada, if they are going to go stateside. Unless they are able to change Province and follow the same game plan, but stay up in Canada.

I think they are more based out of the USA now. Years when I bought 15 the dealings were out of California IIRC.

 

[Bobby H]

This applies to opening up Corel files as well.

One cannot or should not expect a proprietary file format to be opened up by another program with 100% success rate. It's just not logical to expect that. Now, I'm a strong believer, as I have said numerous times, of having everything outlined or finalized to the upmost that one can still do and still have as much perks of it being vector as one can.

I have certain run into some issues bringing CorelDRAW-generated artwork into Adobe Illustrator. For porting to Illustrator I get the best results by exporting the artwork from Corel as Illustrator CS6 files (exported via CorelDRAW 2018). Illustrator won't open/place recent version CorelDRAW files and I've had very serious issues trying to open older CDR files directly in Illustrator. One SNAFU I experienced when attempting to open a CDR file directly in Illustrator involved completely uninstalling and reinstalling all Adobe software on my PC (as well as running Adobe's cleaner tool) to get Illustrator working again. Certain Corel-based effects, such as square fountain fills, are not supported in Adobe Illustrator. Corel doesn't support a bunch of Illustrator-based effects either.

For many years I've practiced the policy of expanding, flattening or finalizing as many effects in a design as possible once I was happy with the looks of it. Illustrator's art and pattern brush effects for line strokes are fantastic. But those effects do not port well at all outside of Illustrator. Gotta expand it into editable outlines. The same goes for things like text on path effects. Hell, when I'm done with a design I don't even leave any fonts "live." They're all converted to curves/outlines. Just from the perspective of using CorelDRAW exclusively leaving something like a text on path effect active is a hazard. I've opened 20 year old CDR files with still active text on path effects in recent versions of CorelDRAW. The results are as wacky as any CDR import attempt in a rival software application.

Adding to that, I make very detailed shop drawings/client sketches. Worst case scenario is losing the original art files in some unforeseen circumstance. Having at least a printed sketch with well detailed specs, dimensional call-outs, etc will provide a good formula to at least re-build straight-forward sign designs from scratch accurately.

Some effects leave the user no choice but to keep the effect live. That goes for things like non-symmetrical gradient fills, such as elliptical gradients. Illustrator has supported that for a very long time. CorelDRAW only adopted that recently. Same for transparency on gradients or even full OpenType support.

In the end CorelDRAW is at a disadvantage to Illustrator because much of the advertising industry does not create or trade their brand assets in Corel's format. It's all Adobe. And like you said, you can't really trust a rival application to open a given graphics file in a proprietary format with 100% accuracy. At some point you end up having to just cave (and buy) to start using that specific software. I feel like Adobe is a near-monopoly over the situation.

Ironically, even you were complaining about a particular type of lack of control when it comes to the Mac version of Corel.

That's in a different context. The problem with the Mac version of CorelDRAW is the program not meeting user expectations. Corel wasn't winning over a bunch of new defectors from Adobe (even though that is what they desire). Just about all the people buying the Mac version of CorelDRAW were existing CorelDRAW users who were running the Windows version of CorelDRAW on their Macs in a Windows shell. These people were already accustomed to how CorelDRAW worked in a Windows environment. The radical and arguably backward changes to comply with Apple's OS ideology got many of them upset. Add the problem of slow performance to the mix and that made them downright angry. If Corel doesn't at least fix the slow performance problems ASAP we won't see another Mac version of CorelDRAW for another 15 or so years, if ever.

I think one of the most popular closed source alternatives that has a good reputation is Affinity Designer. Now, down the road, still have to worry about Adobe (especially) buying it out and more then likely "killing" it (Freehand anyone?), but I'm speculating there. Or even they go the subscription route eventually. They may not, but that's just a possibility that exists.

I like what Serif is trying to do with Affinity Designer (as well as their Photo & Publisher apps). You can buy the full version for Mac/PC for $49.99 or the iPad version for $19.99. Currently they have a 20% off special making the prices $39.99 and $15.99 respectively. You buy once and get all the following upgrades for free. That sounds like a fantastic deal. Here's what makes me wonder: Affinity Designer is a new, upstart program. It was first released in October of 2014. Adobe Illustrator was first released in March of 1987, 32 years ago. CorelDRAW was first released in January of 1989, 30 years ago. Can Serif's business model for Affinity Designer be stretched out to 30 years? It's not like Affinity Designer is without low cost challengers either. Inkscape's legacy goes back 15 years, and is a formidable rival on desktop computers. Affinity Designer has an iPad version. But it's challenged there by several low cost applications, like Autodesk Graphic and Vectornator Pro. In the case of Vectornator, you can now grab that from Apple's App Store for free.

Regarding the angle of Adobe buying the Serif company just to kill Affinity Designer, I don't see that happening. On one point there doesn't appear to be anything unique Adobe could gain from acquiring Serif other than to just kill their products. Adobe bought out Macromedia to gain ownership of Flash and other IP Macromedia owned (and wasn't managing well). Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia. What does Serif have that Adobe doesn't already duplicate in Illustrator or Photoshop to some degree? Another issue is Serif is based in the UK. The UK as well as the EU might be inclined to block any attempts by Adobe to buy out that company, particularly if their only real goal is to eliminate some low cost, upstart competition. The folks over in Europe have to pay considerably more to subscribe to Adobe's software or buy/subscribe to Corel.

 

[Jim Hill]

I think one of the most popular closed source alternatives that has a good reputation is Affinity Designer. Now, down the road, still have to worry about Adobe (especially) buying it out and more then likely "killing" it (Freehand anyone?), but I'm speculating there. Or even they go the subscription route eventually. They may not, but that's just a possibility that exists.

It does have a trial as well. Could spend the trial length and try to do some projects in it and see how it handles your workflow.

I think for open source, Inkscape is the one. Personally, I haven't found something that Ai did that Inkscape didn't do that I needed to use, but the booger was it did it in a different way. Which would apply to any alternative out there. Some wheren't as easy to figure out or understand why it's done that way, but it did work.

I think though with switching to any different program, the learning curve is going to be the booger and how much one is willing to put into that.

After many years of using Coreldraw I am thinking about downloading Inkscape and trying it.
I am interested in hearing from anyone who uses it and just wondering how steep the learning curve is?

Thanks Jim

 

[Jim Hill]

I did not realize that Inkscape does not support CYMK which means I really cannot use it if I can not print with it.

Jim

 

[WildWestDesigns]

That's in a different context. The problem with the Mac version of CorelDRAW is the program not meeting user expectations. Corel wasn't winning over a bunch of new defectors from Adobe (even though that is what they desire). Just about all the people buying the Mac version of CorelDRAW were existing CorelDRAW users who were running the Windows version of CorelDRAW on their Macs in a Windows shell. These people were already accustomed to how CorelDRAW worked in a Windows environment. The radical and arguably backward changes to comply with Apple's OS ideology got many of them upset. Add the problem of slow performance to the mix and that made them downright angry. If Corel doesn't at least fix the slow performance problems ASAP we won't see another Mac version of CorelDRAW for another 15 or so years, if ever.

To a degree, I think this is/was unreasonable.

It's a totally different platform, one that they haven't tried since almost 2 decades ago and they totally re-written the code base for that specific platform. Which in the end, has more advantages if they can survive long enough to get the kinks out.

Even when Adobe was starting out with doing the Windows version, there wasn't total parity between the 2 platforms. One platform may have had a feature that they other didn't and vice versa.

Performance bugs, especially if it applies to the Windows version as well (again for a 1st version on a Mac, I would expect it, more then the usual bugs), is perhaps the only true legitimate concern that I could see. Now, if the bugs are tied to new feature release, they could have been brought due to that, so that would be expected.

To be honest, with the rolling release nature of Win 10 and the variety of hardware/software combinations out there, I wouldn't be surprised if that too aided in performance issues as well. I'm not saying that it did, it's just a variable that I would find interesting to look into.

Can Serif's business model for Affinity Designer be stretched out to 30 years? It's not like Affinity Designer is without low cost challengers either.

Time will only tell on that. Have 30 yrs though, can also be a disadvantage. A lot of legacy that is hard to break free of.

Affinity Designer has an iPad version. But it's challenged there by several low cost applications, like Autodesk Graphic and Vectornator Pro. In the case of Vectornator, you can now grab that from Apple's App Store for free.

I'm not a fan of using small form factor ARM based devices. I know some love it (I do have to wonder what Jobs would say about the Pencil given his thoughts on those types of inputs), but for me, that really isn't an advantage, but I know for some it is (maybe more then just some).

Regarding the angle of Adobe buying the Serif company just to kill Affinity Designer, I don't see that happening. On one point there doesn't appear to be anything unique Adobe could gain from acquiring Serif other than to just kill their products. Adobe bought out Macromedia to gain ownership of Flash and other IP Macromedia owned (and wasn't managing well). Apple bought Final Cut Pro from Macromedia.

Bare in mind, that when Adobe acquired Macromedia, it was the 2nd bite of the Freehand apple. The very reason that Adobe was denied Freehand that 1st time, is the very reason that you doubt that it would happen with Affinity. Eventually Adobe got it. Sometimes there isn't a straight line from point A to Point B.

What does Serif have that Adobe doesn't already duplicate in Illustrator or Photoshop to some degree?

Sometimes, it could be that one does it better and doing it better may be reason enough for acquisition.

I think it's a mistake to only think in terms of uniqueness.

Another issue is Serif is based in the UK. The UK as well as the EU might be inclined to block any attempts by Adobe to buy out that company,

With Brexit, unless something has changed, what hold does what the EU want really have with the UK? In fact, I don't think that any individual country has to totally abide by what the EU collectively wants. If I'm not mistaken there are some work arounds even then. Not to say that the UK wouldn't try to block it (or even the EU), but Adobe getting Freehand was originally blocked as well.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

I did not realize that Inkscape does not support CYMK which means I really cannot use it if I can not print with it.

Jim

See if Output Pro extension would work for you for Inkscape.

Typically if I need to use CMYK, I do the initial work in Inkscape and then use Scribus. I very rarely need it, but that's what I do.

 

[Bobby H]

It's a totally different platform, one that they haven't tried since almost 2 decades ago and they totally re-written the code base for that specific platform. Which in the end, has more advantages if they can survive long enough to get the kinks out.

Software developers are supposed to get the kinks out in the beta cycle. I think the bean counters at Vector Capital and perhaps Corel itself rushed the software to market before it was ready. It reminds me how Macromedia rushed Freehand 10 to market just to be the first drawing app made for OSX. They paid dearly for that buggy release. In the case of the OSX version of CorelDRAW the people buying it have either had to pay the full $499 price for a perpetual license (an existing Windows license does not qualify for an upgrade or cross platform side-grade) or they had to get on the $16.50 per month subscription program. Either way it's a lot of money to spend for software not ready for prime time. I think the customers have every right to be angry.

Regarding early versions of Adobe Illustrator for Windows, they sucked. Illustrator 4 was about as basic as it gets. The 4.1 update (which wasn't free) merely added support for TrueType fonts. From the late 1980's thru mid 1990's Adobe really didn't care at all about developing for the Windows platform. Photoshop was the only application they put any real effort behind. Versions 5, 5.5 and 6 of Illustrator were Mac-only releases. Adobe only started taking the Windows platform seriously as the popularity of web development and web design exploded. Much of the work was happening on those "icky, lowly" Windows PCs rather than far more expensive Macs. This was also the period of time when John Scully and others were leading Apple down a path that gravely threatened the company's very existence. That made the Windows platform look like a safety net to Adobe. Meanwhile CorelDRAW was the dominant vector drawing program on the Windows side by a wide margin, mostly due to very little credible competition for much of the 1990's. Freehand was the only credible rival at that time.

I'm not a fan of using small form factor ARM based devices. I know some love it (I do have to wonder what Jobs would say about the Pencil given his thoughts on those types of inputs), but for me, that really isn't an advantage, but I know for some it is (maybe more then just some).

I use my iPad Pro and various drawing/painting applications installed on it frequently in my work. The Apple Pencil is the main thing that sold me on getting it. I would not have purchased the iPad otherwise. The screen isn't tiny; it's similar to a letter sized sheet of paper. Unlike hand-drawing something on paper I can zoom into my work and fine tune a lot of details and do all sorts of other things to manipulate the sketch while it's still in progress. I can even vectorize the end results of a sketch within the iPad (although I prefer using the pen tools in Illustrator or Photoshop for hand digitizing tasks). The battery life is fantastic. I don't have to mess with a flatbed scanner as much anymore.

Sometimes, it could be that one does it better and doing it better may be reason enough for acquisition.

Patents and other legally protected IP is the thing that inclines one software company to buy another. If Affinity Designer has some cool trick to it that can be legally copied by others then the rivals will add similar features without paying Serif anything. Adobe's buyout of Macromedia was to get at all the patents it owned, as well as its titles. I don't really see any revolutionary new technology in Affinity Designer. It's just a different take on vector drawing software.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Software developers are supposed to get the kinks out in the beta cycle.

Supposed to and what actually happens in practice are far different from one another. Maybe I'm skewed differently as not only was my mom a programmer many moons ago, but I've also contributed code to open source projects and as a beta tester for many open and closed source programs.

No matter how much something is tested in beta before it gets out in the wild, one will not be able to find all the bugs. Just not going to happen. Sometimes it's due to a particular workflow that a person has to accomplish a specific task that for whatever reason caused a bug to appear. Or (and this is mainly a windows problem) all the different hardware/software combinations that also interact with the program. The devs can't possible account for all of that in beta.

This is why all software (open and closed software) are distributed "as is" and no warranty is given on suitability for a purpose (this is covered in the EULA of software). Ironically purpose also includes the very purpose that people get said software for.

Now, it would behoove the vendor to make it as suitable as it can be for the purpose that people purchase software for, I'm not saying that they shouldn't. But I think people that don't know even a little inkling of what goes into software development loose sight of just what is involved.

The screen isn't tiny; it's similar to a letter sized sheet of paper.

When one is used to a 27 QHD, yea, it's on the small side of things.

I don't have to mess with a flatbed scanner as much anymore.

When ever I start from a traditional sketch, I use the Inkling, it already has a digital version ready to upload to the computer, so scanning isn't necessary. Which is a good thing as I don't have a scanner.

I don't really see any revolutionary new technology in Affinity Designer. It's just a different take on vector drawing software.

Without actually being able to look at the source code, it's hard to say that just from the outside looking in.

 

[Bobby H]

Supposed to and what actually happens in practice are far different from one another. Maybe I'm skewed differently as not only was my mom a programmer many moons ago, but I've also contributed code to open source projects and as a beta tester for many open and closed source programs.

I'm looking at the situation from the perspective of the paying customer. If the product that is being sold does not meet user expectations and is sluggish, buggy garbage the customers should have ZERO obligation to buy it. Even if the company is giving existing users an ultimatum to upgrade or else. I'll stick with the older versions that actually work in a reasonably fast and dependable manner.

When one is used to a 27 QHD, yea, it's on the small side of things.

I have a pair of 27" displays hooked up to my work desktop PC. Nevertheless when I hand draw sketches for manipulation later in the computer I don't need a giant sized sheet of paper to get the job done. A letter sized sheet of paper is a very comfortable size for sketching. The large iPad Pro is not much different from that. You might not think it's a great product, but I do and have been pretty happy with the purchase. So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.