Serif released version 2 of the Affinity programs

Introduction
Apart from raving reviews about Affinity's version 2 update by users that have not encountered difficulty installing the programs, there are installation problems for a number of users of the Windows platform that should not have occurred. After having waited for a long time to be able to download an upgrade that was not a Beta version, expectations of version 2 were quite high and running into problems installing the programs caught me and many other users by surprise. In this blog entry I will offer a constructive contribution to (temporarily) resolve this problem, expecting a company release soon that will enable successful installation, this being a situation that Serif must put behind them as soon as possible.

On the Affinity forum several work arounds have been suggested, most of which do not work for most users struck by the problem, which tempts people like me to search for other solutions that actually do work. Below you find one that resolved the problem I ran into, although I am aware that changes in the installation code have to be applied in order to avoid users having to apply work arounds or figure out themselves what to do, to install the version 2 programs of the Affinity suit successfully right out of the box. In this blog entry I will focus on Affinity Designer predominantly, since it is the suit's program that I used most often.

Programs will not install
The long awaited release of version 2 of Affinity Designer, Photo and Publisher has recently taken place. I purchased and downloaded them from the Affinity forum, but when I tried to install them I received a message that the installation was cancelled because an error occurred in parsing the apps (all three of them). The file format of the installation was msix. When browsing the forum I soon learned that this affected other users too. Several possible solutions were offered by the mods and advanced users, but none of them cured the problem for me. Later I downloaded the apps from the Microsoft Store, which was the beginning of a solution, since at least .exe-files were placed in WindowsApp directory in the Windows User directory, which isn't the location where Windows users, accustomed to the traditional installation process would expect the files to be placed.

The programs would only open by right clicking the .exe-file from the WindowsApp directory in the system disk and choosing the run as administrator option. They would not start from the Start menu or from the shortcut icons that I placed on the Taskbar. Also I was unable to open files I had drawn in the older Beta versions by dragging them from Windows Filemanager onto the desktop of the programs.

When diving into the problem at a certain point I discovered that the properties of the Affinity (sub)directories in the WindowsApps directory displayed a message that the Permission file was corrupted (in bold red type). I set the permissions to full control for myself and after that the programs opened without using the Run As Administrator command, from both the Start menu and the shortcuts I placed on the Taskbar.

Apparently the .msix files interfered with the user permissions of the Affinity (sub)directories in the WindowsApps directory, necessary to run the programs properly. This directory is located at C:\Users\UserName\Downloads on a Windows 10 system, in which the Affinity programs are in directories with the following name: affinity-designer-2.0.0.msix, in this case for Designer. After running the exe-files from this directory users are prompted to one time fill in their Affinity ID information and the programs appear in the Start menu from where they can be pinned to the Taskbar. Fortunately this problem does not affect all users, but to those that encounter this problem, it is a rather painful disappointment. 

Affinity Designer 2 start up screen

First impressions
I had become curious to the functionality increase of the version 2 programs after watching various Youtube videos that featured them and I must say I was happy to try them. There still are functions missing in Designer that are included in programs of the competition - such as the Mesh gradient tool (which I personally do not miss), the vector trace tool (that I never use), the shape blender tool (which would be nice), the vector eraser and liquify tools and the stroke width tool to name just a few, but overall the upgrades work well and I think they are somewhat worth the money, though Serif could have included more new tools. There is a temporary discount for buying all programs in the suit, a package deal, which is why I hesitantly decided to upgrade. It is a €120 one time payment - no subscription fee - for the entire suit, by the way.

Affinity Photo 2 start up screen

The shape builder tool is a long awaited function that the devs added, the knife / scissors tool as well and the versatile warp tool are absolutely great. In addition the UI has been improved, in particular the Layers panel. Check out the Affinity channel on Youtube, The Affinity Revolution channel, The Brown Bear channel, the Design made simple channel, Olivio Sarkas' channel, the Games From Scratch channel and Kru Mark's channel to get an idea of what the version 2 upgrade is all about. All these persons did an excellent job of exploring the version 2 programs from their own perspective, providing arguments for users to upgrade or not.

The problems for the developers
Kru Mark compares the upgrade to the functionality of Affinity's competition and there still are some tools missing that are included in Illustrator and Inkscape for instance, but for the type of work I create, they are not crucial. I am aware of the fact however, that there are users that would benefit from the missing functions as mentioned by Kru Mark. The improvements the devs actually did include in this version are a welcome addition and perhaps other improvements will be included in the upcoming Beta versions. But not including them in this version, is somewhat of a missed opportunity.

I think Serif was under a lot of pressure to release version 2, because it has been a rather long time since they released the previous upgrade, but I assume the stability of the programs in the suit is a major prerequisite, meaning more time and effort goes into programming and testing. But because Serif did not provide any information why the upgrade took so long, some users wondered if Affinity was dead...., a situation that could have been avoided by keeping users up to date concerning the development of version 2. Had Serif come up with buggy programs in its suit it might have resulted in a bad reputation that is extremely difficult to repair and therefore bad for business. Also the necessity of coding 3 programs to the next upgrade level simultaneously, may have accounted for the lengthy upgrade interval. 

Perhaps because of all these factors, the pressure on the devs in the Serif office was a bit too high, which may have resulted in the aforementioned installation problems, that could in fact be caused by Microsoft's installation policy, requiring companies to use the .msix files instead of traditional installation methods in which the running of .exe files places programs in the Program directory of the system disk or any other directory on any disk the user prefers to install it on. I think the changes necessary to integrate the version 2 suit with the Microsoft Store installation policy, may have given the devs a headache as well and resulting from that Serif's clients, that ran into bungled installations.

Affinity Publisher 2 start up screen

But since it is possible to correct them, I think the Serif team will be able to sort out the problems, but this should have taken place before the release.The installation engine may be separate from the rest of the program, but this is no concern of users - they just want thingsto work properly, which is what they paid for. Although at this point I am intensively experimenting with the absolutely brilliant VectorStyler program, I will still to use the Affinity suite for production purposes for the time being, because VectorStyler still in the development stage. But if Serif slows down the upgrade pace while VectorStyler steps it up, there will come a moment in future when I will make a different decision.

The reason of the update pace being quite low, perhaps has to do with the fact that the software is developed for Windows, Apple silicon - both the Mac OS and iPad version - and the fact that all three programs in the suit are integrated, which means when working in Publisher to make changes to vector art or pixel art Designer and Photo do not have to be opened separately, but all editing can be done from within Publisher. This Studio Link integration, that is the first of its kind in the graphics world and DTP business, will noticeably increase the artists' productivity.

Publisher by the way, can now be installed on the iPad as well, which adds a lot of value to Apple's tablet. because it makes the iPad the first tablet capable of running an (almost) full fledged DTP-program. A long awaited major tool that finally made it into the new Publisher for all platforms is the possibility to create footnotes, endnotes and side notes, which is a function any serious DTP-program must have. This integration of this tool makes Publisher's upgrade the most 'necessary' of the programs in the version 2 Affinity suit.

Conclusion
So, apart from some good aspects to this upgrade, there are too many bad ones, that are not mentioned in may other places on the web or elsewhere. Yet, a certain number of these things nevertheless are worth being put forward, because these programs have become (part of) the livelihood of many that continue to search for ways to survive crumbling economies and continuously soaring expenses. I have listed them below and added some related issues:

1. The installation trouble for a number of Windows users should have been sorted out before the release of version 2. The mods on the forum should not be suggesting work arounds that require users to dive deep in their operating system (registry tweaks have been suggested), which could easily lead to breaking more than the average user is able to foresee, while most suggestions did not even resolve the problem. This situation should most definitely have been prevented
2. As Kru Mark correctly reported, there still are several crucial functions missing in version 2 that, in view of the long time that has passed since the previous upgrade, could have been and should have been integrated
3. Possible upgrades and / or additions of certain tools will most likely be presented in future Beta versions, that are by definition not stable. I one time received the advice in the forum not to use a certain Beta version, because it would not export .png-files properly (which apparently was a known issue, that did not occur in earlier versions....), which brings me to think: Why the heck issue that Beta version in the first place? Is it for users to test or to keep them happy by showing them development still is ongoing? And why would Serif release a Beta version that it advices users no to use? This is a weird type of advice to give to users that simply report that the program is not doing what it is supposed to do and (moreover) what it did correctly before, which makes the situation even more strange
4. The reason I bought the various Serif products is because I loathe the overly expensive Adobe subscription policy, aside from the other type of disdain they display for their userbase, but I estimate Serif is now at a turning point on how to proceed in the market in which they are operating. The price of the Affinity programs has almost doubled compared to the period in which they were issued for the first time. They still charge a one time fee, but how long will Serif be able to determine its own policies in a time in which giant players simply buy companies that they deem to be interesting for their strategy - meaning: use their code or simply kill them off
5. Innovation should be higher on the list of priorities of the Serif company, because its competition seems to extend their lead in this field. As a small player in the arena fighting the big boys, the lack of innovative progress is a danger riddled situation to be in, that leads to venues where no company wants to be
6. The absence of a roadmap that indicates the planned progress of the future versions, is an ominous sign. Blender for instance, continuously updates their publicly issued road map and relatively swiftly integrates the announced improvements, while coding 3D software is necessarily more complex that coding 2D software. Serif not being transparent about where it is going with the suit's development, is rather odd, to say the least, because it leaves users in the dark about the direction in which the company aims to develop. It feels like hopping on an airplane and not knowing where one is going to end up
7. The startup screens of all 3 programs in version 2 flash a message that the 'Microsoft Store registration is checked' each time the program is opened. It makes sense that Serif registers its users for obvious reasons, but I fail to see why it is necessary for Microsoft to register Affinity users, yet it demands every company that sells products through their store to amend their code. To what extent and in what way would be interesting to know. Particularly since Microsoft is not world famous for being overly concerned with the wellbeing of its users. This seemingly trivial detail could have far reaching consequences that only but very few users are capable of imagining in a society in which the increase of centralized control has gone beyond the type of measure that complies with democratic principles
8. Almost immediately after buyers of version 2 ran into rather serious trouble - failed installation, not being able to open the programs and not being able to save files created (among a number of other bugs, most of which Serif has not yet resolved....) - this message appeared on the forum in bold white type on a red background at the top of each page: 'Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.' Either Serif bit off more than it could chew with this release or other situations have occurred behind the scene that I prefer not to speculate on, but either way, this is bad news. Not being at least somewhat transparent about this towards its users / buyers does not help as well, because such conduct most certainly will provoke conjecture.

Minisforum HX90G

10 port USB 3 hub

Update December 21 2022

The new Minisforum Neptune HX90G mini PC arrived with Windows 11 and installation of the Affinity suit programs from the Microsoft store went without problems. More on running Windows 11 on this computer in this blog entry. So, upgrading to Windows 11 from my very old 2004 rig (first gen i7) cost me an arm and a leg. It includes the hardware - computer and USB hub - and Serif's Universal License. Corporate rule affects an increasing part of today's world.

Vectorwhiz portfolio booklet

I have created a new portfolio in pdf the you find here, that you can download to view offline. The file size is 28 MB, so slow connections may need some time to download the document. I have resampled the images to 144 DPI (original resolution is 300 DPI) so that download time is limited while the appearance of the images remains acceptable.

Front cover page

This 88 page booklet was created in Affinity Publisher and contains:

• vector portraits
• vector paintings
• vector illustrations
• vector logos
• vector T-shirt designs
• pixel portraits
• pixel paintings
• 3D illustrations
• 3D vector technical drawings
• creative text - poetry

In the footer of each page in the document you find links to the TOC (table of contents) for easy navigation and a link to my website. The vector images were created in Affinity Designer, the pixel images in Affinity Photo and the 3D images in a 3D program named Rhinoceros v5. The poetry texts I usually create in Libre Office.

Affinity Publisher had trouble with the file for reasons so far unknown, but fortunately I was able to churn out a pdf file before it did. Publisher officially still is in Beta stage at this point, so it makes sense that things are not stable yet. I have good hope though that the developers of Serif (the owner of the Affinity programs) will be able to correct the bugs in a time not too far from now (July 2020).

My website - should you want to pay a visit  [wink wink, nudge nudge] - was made in Mobirise, the latest version of which seems to be much more stable than previous ones. Out of frustration about older Mobirise versions I wrote some unkind words about it (with good cause at the time) a few years back, but the latest version has not given any trouble so far.

Is QuarkXpress a serious contender to InDesign?

It is quite noticeable on the Internet that the dislike of Adobe's subscription policy (some even call it prisonware) is increasing. In spite of the comprehensiveness of the collaborating programs in Adobe's suit, many DTP-ers are looking for alternatives to continue their work. At first glance it seems there aren't many serious competitors to InDesign, at least not ones that are similarly feature rich. But for users to be driven to consider a switch to an other program, because they feel plundered, in spite of the magnificent features of InDesign, indicates that something is wrong with the capacity to make proper decisions in Adobe's management (although the bloke that persuaded them to do it, most likely reached his target with a rousing fanfare - Subscriptions to Adobe’s popular Creative Cloud software have powered a 44 percent increase in revenue since 2013...). Users have to overcome a steep learning curve in order to be able to work with an alternative program and have to convert a number of their documents that they created in InDesign. But the time, effort and money that it costs, does not seem to stop many from looking for alternatives nevertheless. That should ring some bells at Adobe, but I assume they think that their industry leader position prevents them from losing too many users, which they believe will be more than compensated by the revenues resulting from their grippingly expensive subscription policy.

An other flaw that InDesign has, is that it is incapable of integrating SQL data, which would be a very useful function for a lot of companies (that must print labels or other printed docs that often recur, requiring change). There are rather expensive and not 100% properly working third party plug-ins to solve this problem (somewhat), but on top of Adobe's already expensive program this would put off many users that would have potential use for it. A simple program like Microsoft Word handles SQL data without a plug-in a lot better than InDesign.

In the past Aldus PageMaker was a program that re-invented the art of Desktop Publishing. It became available for Macintosh computers in 1985 and for Windows machines in 1987. No contending program was able to match its features. In 1994 PageMaker was bought by Adobe. Its latest release was version 7.0 that was launched in 2001.

Before that time an other DTP-program, named QuarkXpress had conquered the DTP market, because it had many more functions than PageMaker. QuarkXpress 4.0 made that company grow so fast that Quark intended to buy Adobe. The latter averted the take over and developed InDesign that was based on Shuksan or K2 that Aldus had already began to develop in the time it was bought by Adobe. That eventually resulted in Adobe issuing InDesign. This program rapidly gained Adobe a leading position in the DTP realm, which it has been able to expand over time.

But Adobe's subscription model forces users to pay indefinitely for the right to use its programs. Its monopoly on the market probably prompted the company to make such a choice, thinking that professional users in Desktop Publishing would have no choice but to use InDesign. I am not on some type of crusade against Adobe, but I just feel it is exploiting its market position. Their suit is excellent and its programs work together in a great way. However, expecting users to endlessly pay for programs instead of buying a license and allowing users to decide to upgrade when they feel it is necessary, is not good business conduct.

An other contender, Microsoft's Publisher, is not taken seriously by professionals due to its lack of advanced features, while FrameMaker - suited to create large, structured documents - purchased from Frame by Adobe in 1995, used mainly in big business environments where less fancy lay-out features are required. FrameMaker is commonly used for database publishing, which is a specialized trade. It reads ODBC / SQL / XML objects and links them in documents automatically, so whenever the information in the database is changed, they are applied in the document instantly. It is a tool particularly useful for companies that continuously need to process large amounts of data, to which DTP-specialists have to do few or no editing at all. Airliners for example, quarterly receive approximately 150,000 pages that update the manual for a specific large type of aircraft. These include legacy data (bitmaps) and editable data. FrameMaker is therefore almost never used as a single program production platform; many other programs are involved in the update process - database shells, programs for vectorizing bitmaps (rasters), OCR etc.

Open source Lyx that is a shell based on Latex typesetting that does not follow the WYSIWYG principle that has become the standard in the DTP world. It is predominantly used in academic circles and is perfectly capable of creating and integrating (editable) complex mathematical formulae in documents, but it does not attract many users outside of its niche and does not seem to attempt to do so. It is not created to do general publishing, but is very good at composing large, structured documents.

A great DTP program that once adorned the business of lay-out enhancing artists is Ventura that was bought by Corel in 1993. Ventura had been around from the pre-Windows era, running on DOS. Its transition to Windows was excellent. Renown for the way it handled styles and its magnificent interface, it slowly dissolved into oblivion after Corel didn't bother to give it some TLC. It might have earned them tons of money, but apparently the Corel company had other priorities. Some of its functionality found its way into their flagship CorelDRAW, but that is not a specialist DTP program. A missed opportunity I think.

Finally Scribus is also an open source DTP program which interface resembles word processing applications at first glance. I've tried to use it, but I find it difficult to find the features that would allow it to properly function as a professional DTP program. My biggest objection against Scribus is the fact that it can not properly anchor images in text fields; this is a major requirement in professional DTP-programs and this flaw should urgently be addressed before it can considered to be a serious contender in the publishing realm. Another problem is the fact that native tables can't be configured and edited properly, which especially is a shortcoming for people that have specialized in making technical and commercial documentation. Perhaps it's just me having no feeling with Scribus User Interface, because it excels at hiding key functions very well. I think it is an admirable project and have a lot of respect for programmers that work on open source projects, but key features must be added to this program, before professionals will consider to use it. But for the time being, I am trying to familiarize myself with QuarkXpress to create DTP documents.

So, is QuarkXpress a good alternative to InDesign? It probably is, but its UI is entirely different and it requires a lot of effort for users accustomed to InDesign to create documents of similar complexity and appearance. While in the process of learning QuarkXpress I intensively explored the program's user forum and Youtube to find out where the functions are and how they work. InDesign users may find QuarkXpress' UI not logical in a number of respects. Some functions, like anchoring an image inside a text box, require cut and paste instead of being available as a dedicated function that is easy to find in the menus or by right clicking. In addition anchoring images requires a specific sequence of actions for it to work properly - create an image box, cut and paste it where the image should be anchored inside the text and lastly import the image in the pasted box. After that fiddling with inserts and tabs is necessary to position the runaround text. The image box consequently starts to behave as text..., eventhough some (but not all) of the image properties remain editable.

I'm not saying InDesign's anchoring function is flawless, but it is more intuitive, is less difficult to find (because it is in a logical position in the menus), faster to accomplish and edit, while significantly less tedious and more flexible for users to work with. And what is more: it bloody works! I mention this feature specifically, because it is a crucial function for those creating and editing long documents, especially if items or pages have to be inserted in the beginning of a document. Note: No one seems to dig deep in to core of this fundamental DTP-function in the QuarkXpress forum and Youtube, I suspect because it is a shortcoming so far not addressed. Five paragraphs below this one I refer to problems with legacy functions that developers must deal with in order to maintain UI logic and accessibility of functions, without confusing existing users of a program. It may be the root of this problem in QuarkXpress.

An other example, for call-out creation and editing, Quark placed that function in the Item menu, while related functions are in the Edit, Style and Window menus. Why not combine them all in one place or make them accessible in one dialogue box? It all works when properly applied, but users shouldn't have to do exhaustive digging in the menu structure to get the job done. It feels more like a workaround instead of a dedicated function. I'm aware of the fact that veteran QuarkXpress users may shrug their shoulders over my remarks, but if QuarkXpress aims to expand its audience, then something should be done about these things, because they are oddities that all new users (that aim to switch from InDesign for example) run into.

InDesign has a wealth of filters that allow images to be transparent with a number of properties, including fading transparency that can be applied instantly. These are not available as dedicated functions in QuarkXpress and require more clicks after users have figured out where to find the functions and how they work. Editing in photo / bitmap editing programs can sometimes not be avoided, because it can't be done in QuarkXpress; editing of fading transparency of images or boxes at an angle of choice for example. Also creating interactive documents in QuarkXpress forces users to look for functions that are not user friendly or simply non-existing. In view of this, I think the QuarkXpress forum is lacking in proper assistance and there aren't many video clips on Youtube that shed an efficient light on complex DTP matters either. That means that users that want to make the switch from InDesign to QuarkXpress have to figure out these things by themselves. That is a shame really, since many DTP-ers simply do not have the time to discover these functionalities. It is a situation that the people at QuarkXpress have to seriously consider, especially now that there is a lot of annoyance among DTP-ers with regard to Adobe's subscription policies, urging them to find usable alternatives. QuarkXpress puts a lot of emphasis on persuading users to opt for their less expensive licensing policy, but neglects making a greater effort of improving their program's UI and functionality, while leaving their support section with a lack of support.

Meanwhile, rumours have it that Serif, that also developed Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, is in the process of creating a DTP program as well - Affinity Publisher. Date of issue has been delayed several times, but in view of Affinity Photo's and Affinity Designer's most outstanding capabilities, expecting that their future DTP program may have similarly magnificent features is probably not far off the mark. The current situation in the DTP market should force Adobe and QuarkXpress to reconsider their chosen paths; Adobe might rethink if its subscription policy may have been an unfortunate decision, capable of harming Adobe's market share in the long run and QuarkXpress should probably do some work on its UI and extend its user support.

It isn't a disgraceful thing for QuarkXpress to mimic the useful parts of Adobe's UI - the Corel suit allows users to chose between several interfaces, which means it is feasible for programmers to achieve such a feat. Most importantly: it makes switching from Adobe to QuarkXpress much easier. If Adobe and QuarkXpress miss the boat in the departments indicated, Serif may pass them both in the near future, especially since the combination of Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher would make their suit quite complete. Perhaps adding a webdesign program would be the cherry on the cake.

Affinity's advantage over both InDesign and QuarkXpress, is that Serif has no need to consider legacy functionality - it can do things right from scratch and it has no legacy tool functions to take into account (unless it is going to transform its Serif Plus DTP-program into Affinity Publisher...). A lack of legacy functions to consider, tends to make programs easier, faster and cheaper to develop, resulting in a more user friendly UI that requires less clicks and endless plunging into menus. Serif has shown to be well capable of doing exactly that with Affinity Photo and Designer. This observation may have the ability to cause Adobe and QuarkXpress to worry, because they're basically stuck with modifying legacy functionaly.

In addition Affinity's low price policy may tempt users, companies and print shops to (re)calculate their (long term) operational costs, which may not lead to conclusions that are favorable for Adobe and QuarkXpress, provided that Serif will be able to manage its programs' pre-press compatibility with existing hardware in a way that will not force print shops to make investments necessary to make proper prints that require much time to complete. I will most certainly keep an eye on Serif's progress with regard to the development of Affinity Publisher and write about it once they have issued the program.


Update February 2019

Since a couple of months ago Serif issued a number of the beta versions of Affinity Publisher and although it is not a finished product yet, it looks very promising. What jumps out is the interface that is very intuitive and is already prepared (but not yet functioning) to integrate with Affinity Photo and Designer. Bearing in mind that Serif has the necessary experience with DTP (the excellent PagePlus program) I don't doubt that they will be able to bring Publisher up to speed within a reasonable amount of time. They have stated that they will not use the unaltered code of PagePlus, but build Publisher from the ground up, making it meet the most modern requirements and prevent their team of developers from having to work-around / work with legacy code, which generally tends to make programs slow and / or bloated (and / or even buggy).

Adobe InDesign, Scribus, LyX, VivaDesigner, Quark Xpress, Affinity Publisher

Recently I have been (re-)learning InDesign again. I have an old CS3 version, but now tried the new CS6. The program is impressive in any respect. The structure and logic are beyond that of most other programs. Perhaps only a number of 3D applications are able to match it. A lot of digging in the menus is required to make full use of it, but once that is done the program allows to produce the most complex documents for any purpose imaginable: print, web, animations etc. there is very little the is not capable of.

InDesign screendump