4 ms·

I was so in love with the idea of "purchase and own for life" I thought every now and then I will buy the license and have a piece of mind. What started after S

by pmkary 1y ago

I was so in love with the idea of "purchase and own for life" I thought every now and then I will buy the license and have a piece of mind. What started after SaaS is now at its closing days to have fully ruined software and from now on there will be hell like we have never seen before. Free Software is dead, Indie software as we used to is dead, and great businesses like Serif are down the road of being dead. I'm so sad.

renewiltord 1y ago
I mean, what’s the problem? You wanted a pay once use forever and you got that with v2. So keep using v2. No one is going to charge your credit card.
- Espressosaurus 1y ago
  I paid for v1 and v2, and would have happily paid for v3. The reason I’m not using Adobe is to avoid their onerous subscription. If Affinity has moved to a subscription model then why bother not using the incumbent?
  - karel-3d 1y ago
    I think the price points will be different.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    Okay so you wanted a different kind of subscription (based on major versions). That’s different from the guy I’m replying to who wants to Buy Software And Just Use It. He can do that with v2. Never needs to pay a penny again.
    - Espressosaurus 1y ago
      No, I still want the option of sticking with the old version if I decide that I'm done for now and for it to continue working. I want to own my software, not rent it.
      - renewiltord 1y ago
        All right, well you've got it. There's just no corresponding new version. Just like there are no more albums by Prince. I suppose you were lamenting there were no more songs by Prince, which is fair. I, too, feel that void. Except for the odd fact that now you've got the software without having to pay.
        daemin 1y ago
        Cue the old adage that if you're not paying for something you're the product not the customer... Though in this case the biggest danger is being the training material creator used to train its models for its paid generative AI offering. I would assume people are monitoring the privacy policy and terms of use to know when such a change would happen - if it isn't so already, I haven't checked those documents. As for me I'm happy to stick with v2 for as long as it can function on computers I own and use.
  - Gigachad 1y ago
    Because Adobe in design costs a minimum of $430AUD while this is free.
  - robertoandred 1y ago
    Now you can have v3 without having to pay anything at all. What’s the problem?
- pmkary 11mo ago
  It's not the same. As I said I'm okay with buying the next version every now and then—which makes the same price mostly—what I am not happy about is that my "tools" are becoming "services". There is a different feeling of buying a hammer, and going to a shop and paying them to use their hammer each time. The pricing is the same, but I can no longer just open up my offline Affinity and do what I want to, now it has to connect to the internet and take many seconds each time to "verify my license". The feeling ruins it. This knowledge that everything is a service and anyone can flip the switch and ruin your whole workflow like a pizza shop is not good, one has to be able to make their own pizza even if the shops felt like closing. A creative tool must not be a service, it has to be like your kitchen, your own.
archagon 1y ago
Free software is dead? Free software is still there, same as it ever was. And it will be there forever. The more people flee to it from SAAS shittification, the better it will get.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  It’s not dead, but a lot of it is stagnant. How much has Gimp improved in the last 10 years vs photoshop.
  - archagon 1y ago
    Gimp, maybe not so much[1], but I understand that Krita has improved quite a bit. And regardless of stagnancy, both of these applications will continue to exist long after Affinity gets our-incredible-journeyed. [1]: (FWIW, I don't know one way or the other. Apologies to any Gimp developers here.)
    - Andrex 1y ago
      Gimp actually, finally had their big 3.0 update earlier this year which "modernized" (to ~5 years ago) a lot of the codebase. The UI is mostly the same but it's using much more modern UI components (editing text isn't terrible now, etc.) https://www.gimp.org/news/2025/03/16/gimp-3-0-released/ https://www.gimp.org/news/2025/03/16/gimp-3-0-released/ Gimp's problem is mostly one of funding and attention, like most OSS projects. But it's never stopped development, which I think is impressive 27 years on. Imagine where Gimp would be if any company treated it like Valve treats WINE.
      - archagon 1y ago
        Oh nice! Just gave it a shot and it does feel a lot more pleasant to use on macOS than what I remember.
      - fainpul 1y ago
        Can I now finally open a png or jpg file, make some edits and hit <Ctrl + S> or do I still have to go through the "Export" dialog?
bigyabai 1y ago
This seems fatalist. Free software isn't dead, and indie software hasn't died because the notion of "purchase and own for life" isn't a sustainable business model. In the 1980s, buying a new computer often meant buying compatible copies of software you already owned. It was a treadmill of support that did keep computing alive, but also prevented ordinary people from investing into the hobby as fully as they liked. Many of the boutique developers from the 80s would go out of business in the 1990s, when home computing proliferated to the point that they couldn't profit. Both FOSS and commercial software development persisted, despite the predictions of unfathomable hellscapes by the advocates of Franklin Computer et. al. In my opinion, what changed was customer sentiment. 15 years ago, in the halcyon early days of the iPhone, paying $5/month for a SaaS or $10 for a novelty app was exciting. There was a (naive) belief that spending "the cost of a cup of coffee" would contribute to the betterment of society once Apple and Mastercard had taken their cut. But it never panned out. Brand loyalty is as foolish in software as it is in hardware.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > In my opinion, what changed was customer sentiment. 15 years ago, in the halcyon early days of the iPhone, paying $5/month for a SaaS or $10 for a novelty app was exciting. I don't know anybody who found paying a monthly fee exicing. On the other hand, I know people who found $10 for a novelty app perfectly reasonable. But these people to my knowledge have not changed in their stances here. In other words: I see no change in customer sentiment.
- tavavex 1y ago
  > indie software hasn't died because the notion of "purchase and own for life" isn't a sustainable business model The worst thing is that it can totally be a sustainable business model. Many software giants of today grew to their size by offering "buy to own" products through the 90s and 2000s. Lots of software can still be bought through that model, especially games, and it seems to be going pretty well for the developers. No, it's not that this model isn't good. It's that it's not enough. For nearly any large business today, the thought of not endlessly maximizing the profit for the immediate next quarter is appalling. The world-leading analysts have done their research, and the results are in: just like you said, brand loyalty doesn't actually matter for anything, and neither does brand perception or consistency. What makes the most money is using any means imaginable to hook people into a recurring payment, so that's what everyone will do once they get big enough. Nothing else actually matters in terms of money.
karel-3d 1y ago
yeah I liked it too but then, I realize how little I pay for this type of software vs how much I pay for subscription for services that I honestly barely use. financially, subscriptions just make more sense sadly. People vote with their wallets, and they vote subscription. It's sad, I loooooved Affinity and their licensing schemes, but honestly... I can see why they are moving. The AI stuff though makes no sense to me? How many people will actually use it? But then I am mostly programmer and I use these tools only time to time.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  > People vote with their wallets In a very real sense, yes. Just like real votes, candidates will collude on issues that are bad for them, and push the discussion on trivial and/or bikesheddy issues people shouldn't really care about, keeping important arguments out of the public place. To people who ever felt their vote were almost useless and not voting would also only make the situation worse...that's exactly how "voting with one's wallet" feel like.
- musicale 1y ago
  > financially, subscriptions just make more sense sadly for the company, maybe
  - recursive 1y ago
    Yes, that's the point.
a96 11mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition is doing better than ever. All of it remains Free, there's more than ever and more being made than ever and there's more funding and demand than ever. Only immediate existential threat is political attacks via corrupt laws.
- pmkary 11mo ago
  Yes, not literally, but after Microsoft bought GitHub and corrupted open source, the meaning of Free Software actually became doing free labor for internet companies and not making tools for humans. Maybe the software is free, but it is only made to create a service and be gatekept rather than exactly making things like Firefox and GIMP and the good old offline days of the past where you had, in a sense, a sort of digital sovereignty. I no longer feel the same in a LUG or community. Maybe that is me, but I just don’t feel Free Software has won; I feel big corporations won in redirecting the labor of Free Software into making paid services. If GNU had won, we would have had an OS X–grade operating system with amazing apps, and yet I don’t find any advancement even in Linux, which is the half-successful dream of GNU. Ubuntu and Firefox failed in making human-centric phones; Ubuntu even failed at making an operating system for people. It’s now advertised as server and IoT, and even Fedora and friends.

by pmkary 1y ago

renewiltord 1y ago

I mean, what’s the problem? You wanted a pay once use forever and you got that with v2. So keep using v2. No one is going to charge your credit card.

Espressosaurus 1y ago
I paid for v1 and v2, and would have happily paid for v3. The reason I’m not using Adobe is to avoid their onerous subscription. If Affinity has moved to a subscription model then why bother not using the incumbent?
- karel-3d 1y ago
  I think the price points will be different.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  Okay so you wanted a different kind of subscription (based on major versions). That’s different from the guy I’m replying to who wants to Buy Software And Just Use It. He can do that with v2. Never needs to pay a penny again.
  - Espressosaurus 1y ago
    No, I still want the option of sticking with the old version if I decide that I'm done for now and for it to continue working. I want to own my software, not rent it.
    - renewiltord 1y ago
      All right, well you've got it. There's just no corresponding new version. Just like there are no more albums by Prince. I suppose you were lamenting there were no more songs by Prince, which is fair. I, too, feel that void. Except for the odd fact that now you've got the software without having to pay.
      - daemin 1y ago
        Cue the old adage that if you're not paying for something you're the product not the customer... Though in this case the biggest danger is being the training material creator used to train its models for its paid generative AI offering. I would assume people are monitoring the privacy policy and terms of use to know when such a change would happen - if it isn't so already, I haven't checked those documents. As for me I'm happy to stick with v2 for as long as it can function on computers I own and use.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  Because Adobe in design costs a minimum of $430AUD while this is free.
- robertoandred 1y ago
  Now you can have v3 without having to pay anything at all. What’s the problem?
pmkary 11mo ago
It's not the same. As I said I'm okay with buying the next version every now and then—which makes the same price mostly—what I am not happy about is that my "tools" are becoming "services". There is a different feeling of buying a hammer, and going to a shop and paying them to use their hammer each time. The pricing is the same, but I can no longer just open up my offline Affinity and do what I want to, now it has to connect to the internet and take many seconds each time to "verify my license". The feeling ruins it. This knowledge that everything is a service and anyone can flip the switch and ruin your whole workflow like a pizza shop is not good, one has to be able to make their own pizza even if the shops felt like closing. A creative tool must not be a service, it has to be like your kitchen, your own.

archagon 1y ago

Free software is dead? Free software is still there, same as it ever was. And it will be there forever. The more people flee to it from SAAS shittification, the better it will get.

Gigachad 1y ago
It’s not dead, but a lot of it is stagnant. How much has Gimp improved in the last 10 years vs photoshop.
- archagon 1y ago
  Gimp, maybe not so much[1], but I understand that Krita has improved quite a bit. And regardless of stagnancy, both of these applications will continue to exist long after Affinity gets our-incredible-journeyed. [1]: (FWIW, I don't know one way or the other. Apologies to any Gimp developers here.)
  - Andrex 1y ago
    Gimp actually, finally had their big 3.0 update earlier this year which "modernized" (to ~5 years ago) a lot of the codebase. The UI is mostly the same but it's using much more modern UI components (editing text isn't terrible now, etc.) https://www.gimp.org/news/2025/03/16/gimp-3-0-released/ https://www.gimp.org/news/2025/03/16/gimp-3-0-released/ Gimp's problem is mostly one of funding and attention, like most OSS projects. But it's never stopped development, which I think is impressive 27 years on. Imagine where Gimp would be if any company treated it like Valve treats WINE.
    - archagon 1y ago
      Oh nice! Just gave it a shot and it does feel a lot more pleasant to use on macOS than what I remember.
    - fainpul 1y ago
      Can I now finally open a png or jpg file, make some edits and hit <Ctrl + S> or do I still have to go through the "Export" dialog?

bigyabai 1y ago

This seems fatalist. Free software isn't dead, and indie software hasn't died because the notion of "purchase and own for life" isn't a sustainable business model. In the 1980s, buying a new computer often meant buying compatible copies of software you already owned. It was a treadmill of support that did keep computing alive, but also prevented ordinary people from investing into the hobby as fully as they liked. Many of the boutique developers from the 80s would go out of business in the 1990s, when home computing proliferated to the point that they couldn't profit. Both FOSS and commercial software development persisted, despite the predictions of unfathomable hellscapes by the advocates of Franklin Computer et. al. In my opinion, what changed was customer sentiment. 15 years ago, in the halcyon early days of the iPhone, paying $5/month for a SaaS or $10 for a novelty app was exciting. There was a (naive) belief that spending "the cost of a cup of coffee" would contribute to the betterment of society once Apple and Mastercard had taken their cut. But it never panned out. Brand loyalty is as foolish in software as it is in hardware.

aleph_minus_one 1y ago
> In my opinion, what changed was customer sentiment. 15 years ago, in the halcyon early days of the iPhone, paying $5/month for a SaaS or $10 for a novelty app was exciting. I don't know anybody who found paying a monthly fee exicing. On the other hand, I know people who found $10 for a novelty app perfectly reasonable. But these people to my knowledge have not changed in their stances here. In other words: I see no change in customer sentiment.
tavavex 1y ago
> indie software hasn't died because the notion of "purchase and own for life" isn't a sustainable business model The worst thing is that it can totally be a sustainable business model. Many software giants of today grew to their size by offering "buy to own" products through the 90s and 2000s. Lots of software can still be bought through that model, especially games, and it seems to be going pretty well for the developers. No, it's not that this model isn't good. It's that it's not enough. For nearly any large business today, the thought of not endlessly maximizing the profit for the immediate next quarter is appalling. The world-leading analysts have done their research, and the results are in: just like you said, brand loyalty doesn't actually matter for anything, and neither does brand perception or consistency. What makes the most money is using any means imaginable to hook people into a recurring payment, so that's what everyone will do once they get big enough. Nothing else actually matters in terms of money.

karel-3d 1y ago

yeah I liked it too but then, I realize how little I pay for this type of software vs how much I pay for subscription for services that I honestly barely use. financially, subscriptions just make more sense sadly. People vote with their wallets, and they vote subscription. It's sad, I loooooved Affinity and their licensing schemes, but honestly... I can see why they are moving. The AI stuff though makes no sense to me? How many people will actually use it? But then I am mostly programmer and I use these tools only time to time.

makeitdouble 1y ago
> People vote with their wallets In a very real sense, yes. Just like real votes, candidates will collude on issues that are bad for them, and push the discussion on trivial and/or bikesheddy issues people shouldn't really care about, keeping important arguments out of the public place. To people who ever felt their vote were almost useless and not voting would also only make the situation worse...that's exactly how "voting with one's wallet" feel like.
musicale 1y ago
> financially, subscriptions just make more sense sadly for the company, maybe
- recursive 1y ago
  Yes, that's the point.

a96 11mo ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition is doing better than ever. All of it remains Free, there's more than ever and more being made than ever and there's more funding and demand than ever. Only immediate existential threat is political attacks via corrupt laws.

pmkary 11mo ago
Yes, not literally, but after Microsoft bought GitHub and corrupted open source, the meaning of Free Software actually became doing free labor for internet companies and not making tools for humans. Maybe the software is free, but it is only made to create a service and be gatekept rather than exactly making things like Firefox and GIMP and the good old offline days of the past where you had, in a sense, a sort of digital sovereignty. I no longer feel the same in a LUG or community. Maybe that is me, but I just don’t feel Free Software has won; I feel big corporations won in redirecting the labor of Free Software into making paid services. If GNU had won, we would have had an OS X–grade operating system with amazing apps, and yet I don’t find any advancement even in Linux, which is the half-successful dream of GNU. Ubuntu and Firefox failed in making human-centric phones; Ubuntu even failed at making an operating system for people. It’s now advertised as server and IoT, and even Fedora and friends.