9 ms·

This is such a shame IMO. The Serif suite was great, and I used to try to get every designer I could to dump adobe and switch to serif. Now that it has switche

by alt227 1y ago

This is such a shame IMO. The Serif suite was great, and I used to try to get every designer I could to dump adobe and switch to serif. Now that it has switched to a freemium model trying to get you to subscribe to AI, I wont be using this or telling other people about it any more. Their priorities have changed. No longer are they trying to to beat adobe at their own game, they are just chasing AI money like everyone else.

derefr 1y ago
To push back against this sentiment: “chasing AI money” isn’t necessarily their thought process here; i.e. it’s not the only reason they would “switch to a freemium model trying to get you to subscribe to AI.” Keeping in mind that: 1. “AI” (i.e. large ML model) -driven features are in demand (if not by existing users, then by not-yet-users, serving as a TAM-expansion strategy) 2. Large ML models require a lot of resources to run. Not just GPU power (which, if you have less of it, just translates to slower runs) but VRAM (which, if you have not-enough of it, multiplies runtime of these models by 10-100x; and if you also don't have enough main memory, you can't run the model at all); and also plain-old storage space, which can add up if there are a lot of different models involved. (Remember that the Affinity apps have mobile versions!) 3. Many users will be sold on the feature-set of the app, and want to use it / pay for it, but won't have local hardware powerful enough to run the ML models — and if you just let them install the app but then reveal that they can't actually run the models, they'll feel ripped off. And those users either won't find the offering compelling enough to buy better hardware; or they'll be stuck with the hardware they have for whatever reason (e.g. because it's their company-assigned workstation and they're not allowed to use anything else for work.) Together, these factors mean that the "obvious" way to design these features in a product intended for mass-market appeal (rather than a product designed only "for professionals" with corporate backing, like VFX or CAD software) is to put the ML models on a backend cluster, and have the apps act as network clients for said cluster. Which means that, rather than just shipping an app, you're now operating a software service, which has monthly costs for you, scaled to aggregate usage, for the lifetime of that cluster. Which in turn means that you now need to recoup those OpEx costs to stay profitable. You could do this by pricing the predicted per-user average lifetime OpEx cost into the purchase price of the product… but because you expect to add more ML-driven features as your apps evolve, which might drive increases usage, calculating an actual price here is hard. (Your best chance is probably to break each AI feature into its own “plugin” and cost + sell each plugin separately.) Much easier to avoid trying to set a one-time price based on lifetime OpEx, by just passing on OpEx as OpEx (i.e. a subscription); and much friendlier to customers to avoid pricing in things customers don’t actually want, by only charging that subscription to people who actually want the features that require the backend cluster to work.
- derefr 1y ago
  That being said, my line of argument here would be a bit more compelling if Canva were still charging for the app. The fact that the apps are now free, suggests that they expect the subscriptions to pay not just for the backend-cluster OpEx, but also for all the developers’ salaries and so forth. --- Honestly, I think Canva here are copying Adobe's playbook, but with a more honest approach than Adobe ever had; one reflecting a much more aware/cynical take on how the software market works in 2025. Adobe essentially charges a continuing fee just to continue to run the software they coded and shipped to you, on your own computer — regardless of whether you even care about any further software updates. (Sure, the subscription pays for other things, like Adobe Bridge cloud storage and so forth, but if you don't pay the subscription, you don't even get to just run the apps.) But this also means that people quite often crack Adobe's apps — because there's something there of value to run on your own computer, if you just strip off the DRM. Canva here are taking a much more pragmatic approach: • Anything that is given to the user to run is free, because ultimately, if you charged for it, people would just crack it. They aren't bothering with DRM or even trying to treat the app itself as a revenue stream. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Especially if you're not in a market position where you think you can win the big enterprise customers over from Adobe. • Anything that is run on your backend is charged for. Because users can't force your cloud services to do anything without a subscription. There's no "cracking" a cloud service. • But also, crucially — if a feature is a "fake cloud" feature, where it could be "pulled down from the cloud" back into the client by writing a compatible implementation of the server backend that does some simple thing, and patching the software to speak to that server (either over the Internet, or to a local-on-the-machine background service that ships with the patch) — then users will do that. So you can only really charge for features that can't be "pulled down" in this way. Like, for example, features relying on some kind of secret-sauce ML model that you never expose to the client. (And that last bit actually makes me less wary of their approach here: it suggests that they likely won't be charging for anything other than inherently "cloudy" features: these large-ML-model-driven features, cloud storage/collaboration features, etc. Which might mean that non-"cloudy" features get ignored... but likely not. For the same reason that Apple doesn't ignore macOS/iOS features in favor of iCloud features: new users won't be interested switching to the platform [and then potentially subscribing] if the base platform itself isn't competitive / doesn't serve their needs.)
jazzyjackson 1y ago
I think it's really cool they can get AI money from the people who want to pay that, to give away the core for free. I can empathize with feeling their focus will be elsewhere (whatever increases revenue) but I figure AI isn't magic, they need to have the rest of the creative suite work well to, yaknow, synergize Edit: I'll add that I much prefer purchasing perpetual licenses for software that can work without a cloud component. Opus, Sublime, Mathematica, totally agree that paying for software aligns incentives. But if it is online, it's a SaaS, and they can't very well offer you cloud services forever at a one time cost. (Rsync.net has a deal to prepay ~4 years worth upfront and they'll let you use it for life but it's capped at 1TB)
- nightski 1y ago
  I'm guessing they are giving the core away for free to collect training data.
  - blackqueeriroh 1y ago
    You can opt out of the telemetry sharing
    - usefulcat 1y ago
      So they say, for now, for some definition of "telemetry" and "sharing", caveat caveat caveat..
      - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
        Asterisks and super-text numbers, the foundation of any trusting business relationship thumbs up
  - zarmin 1y ago
    They claim not to, but I am extremely suspicious. >No, your content in Affinity is not used to train AI-powered features, or to help AI features learn and improve in other ways, such as model evaluation or quality assurance. In Affinity, your content is stored locally on your device and we don’t have access to it. If you choose to upload or export content to Canva, you remain in control of whether it can be used to train AI features — you can review and update your privacy preferences any time in your Canva settings.
Razengan 1y ago
Man. This is another case in favor of open source. OSS may take years to get there but it doesn't go poof in one sudden day either.
- unreal37 1y ago
  Open Source absolutely stops being maintained. And worse.
  - fsloth 1y ago
    Yup, source code does not stay maintainable automatically. Just that code is open does not mean anyone can or wants to do any reasonable development. The only ”safer” bets are the biggest projects providing critical infra for segments of economy like python for example.
    - alt227 1y ago
      At least if you care about it enough then if it dies you can pick it up yourself and maintain it.
reppap 1y ago
Personally I think it's great I both get the app for free and they remove all the AI from it. Couldn't get any better!
- drob518 1y ago
  “You can’t have AI unless you pay extra for it.” “Um… okay. No AI for me.”
brookst 1y ago
What will you recommend to people instead?
- alt227 1y ago
  Stick with Adobe. They may like to squeeze the money out of you but at least their tools are top tier.
  - jazzcomputer 1y ago
    It simply depends on what your needs are IMO - You can do great magazine design in Affinity, brochures, flyers, logos all that stuff. The only thing I'd miss in InDesign is image expand probably. Also if you're making video games, and you don't need to export multi-res textures and work on the edge of file formats for advanced texturing etc, if your budget and needs are served by Affinity why spend on Adobe?
ineedasername 1y ago
I am unclear on the problem: are the apps, previously free, significantly more limited than their prior free versions unless/until you also purchase a subscription for the CanvaAI portions? That aside, this isn’t a new thing for Canva, they aren’t chasing AI here, in this space GenAI is chasing the use case that Canva has been filling for a while, and incorporating genai as part of that is just, you know, “hey lots of people use this ai tool for design work now so maybe we add one because like it or not it’s how thing are”. Design is the Canva space, it’s not like they did a pivot to crypto.
- aeonfox 1y ago
  > are the apps, previously free, significantly more limited than their prior free versions unless/until you also purchase a subscription for the CanvaAI portions? I was curious too. The FAQ says this: > Yes, Affinity really is free. That doesn’t mean you’re getting a watered-down version of the app though. You can use every tool in the Pixel, Vector, and Layout studios, plus all of the customization and export features, as much as you want, with no restrictions or payment needed. The app will also receive free updates with new features and improvements added.
  - ineedasername 1y ago
    Not sure I see the problem then. Canva has a long enough track record that I don’t suspect they’re going to pull a bait and switch on the freemium and start gate keeping new features any time soon.
- jerieljan 1y ago
  I've been using it and so far yeah, a lot of the existing functionality and new functionality is effectively free and it generally only nags you when you use the clearly separate "Canva AI" panel. Checking the settings also tells me that Segmentation (used in Object Selection) is provided but Depth Estimation (used in Portrait Blur and Select Sampled Depth tools), Colorization (used in Colorize filter, apparently intended to colorize B&W photos) and Super Resolution (used in Super Resolve filter) are all paywalled. Honestly, I think that's fine. While I'd wish these are all available (and they could be if you looked hard enough for models that can do this) for a flat price (for parts that are not handled server-side), this is still imho mostly fair.
eddielement 1y ago
Wow. They paywall something that used to be free? You're mad. They give you something free that used to be paid, you're STILL mad! Incredible!
- alt227 1y ago
  You have reduced it down to the wrong components. Its not about the price, its about care and effort in development. If something free gets put behind a paywall because theres genuinely a push for growth in the software thats fair enough. Taking 3 seperately paid products and turning them into 1 freemium app which requires registering an account for is completely different IMO.
xmprt 1y ago
On the other hand, Adobe Photoshop has been amazing for years and I'd argue Affinity has already beaten them at their game. Now Adobe is pivoting to integrating AI tooling into their programs which I don't want and so if Affinity wants to try taking on Adobe on AI too but needs to charge for it, I'm all game.
citrus1330 1y ago
there is genuinely no pleasing some people

by alt227 1y ago

derefr 1y ago

To push back against this sentiment: “chasing AI money” isn’t necessarily their thought process here; i.e. it’s not the only reason they would “switch to a freemium model trying to get you to subscribe to AI.” Keeping in mind that: 1. “AI” (i.e. large ML model) -driven features are in demand (if not by existing users, then by not-yet-users, serving as a TAM-expansion strategy) 2. Large ML models require a lot of resources to run. Not just GPU power (which, if you have less of it, just translates to slower runs) but VRAM (which, if you have not-enough of it, multiplies runtime of these models by 10-100x; and if you also don't have enough main memory, you can't run the model at all); and also plain-old storage space, which can add up if there are a lot of different models involved. (Remember that the Affinity apps have mobile versions!) 3. Many users will be sold on the feature-set of the app, and want to use it / pay for it, but won't have local hardware powerful enough to run the ML models — and if you just let them install the app but then reveal that they can't actually run the models, they'll feel ripped off. And those users either won't find the offering compelling enough to buy better hardware; or they'll be stuck with the hardware they have for whatever reason (e.g. because it's their company-assigned workstation and they're not allowed to use anything else for work.) Together, these factors mean that the "obvious" way to design these features in a product intended for mass-market appeal (rather than a product designed only "for professionals" with corporate backing, like VFX or CAD software) is to put the ML models on a backend cluster, and have the apps act as network clients for said cluster. Which means that, rather than just shipping an app, you're now operating a software service, which has monthly costs for you, scaled to aggregate usage, for the lifetime of that cluster. Which in turn means that you now need to recoup those OpEx costs to stay profitable. You could do this by pricing the predicted per-user average lifetime OpEx cost into the purchase price of the product… but because you expect to add more ML-driven features as your apps evolve, which might drive increases usage, calculating an actual price here is hard. (Your best chance is probably to break each AI feature into its own “plugin” and cost + sell each plugin separately.) Much easier to avoid trying to set a one-time price based on lifetime OpEx, by just passing on OpEx as OpEx (i.e. a subscription); and much friendlier to customers to avoid pricing in things customers don’t actually want, by only charging that subscription to people who actually want the features that require the backend cluster to work.

derefr 1y ago
That being said, my line of argument here would be a bit more compelling if Canva were still charging for the app. The fact that the apps are now free, suggests that they expect the subscriptions to pay not just for the backend-cluster OpEx, but also for all the developers’ salaries and so forth. --- Honestly, I think Canva here are copying Adobe's playbook, but with a more honest approach than Adobe ever had; one reflecting a much more aware/cynical take on how the software market works in 2025. Adobe essentially charges a continuing fee just to continue to run the software they coded and shipped to you, on your own computer — regardless of whether you even care about any further software updates. (Sure, the subscription pays for other things, like Adobe Bridge cloud storage and so forth, but if you don't pay the subscription, you don't even get to just run the apps.) But this also means that people quite often crack Adobe's apps — because there's something there of value to run on your own computer, if you just strip off the DRM. Canva here are taking a much more pragmatic approach: • Anything that is given to the user to run is free, because ultimately, if you charged for it, people would just crack it. They aren't bothering with DRM or even trying to treat the app itself as a revenue stream. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze. Especially if you're not in a market position where you think you can win the big enterprise customers over from Adobe. • Anything that is run on your backend is charged for. Because users can't force your cloud services to do anything without a subscription. There's no "cracking" a cloud service. • But also, crucially — if a feature is a "fake cloud" feature, where it could be "pulled down from the cloud" back into the client by writing a compatible implementation of the server backend that does some simple thing, and patching the software to speak to that server (either over the Internet, or to a local-on-the-machine background service that ships with the patch) — then users will do that. So you can only really charge for features that can't be "pulled down" in this way. Like, for example, features relying on some kind of secret-sauce ML model that you never expose to the client. (And that last bit actually makes me less wary of their approach here: it suggests that they likely won't be charging for anything other than inherently "cloudy" features: these large-ML-model-driven features, cloud storage/collaboration features, etc. Which might mean that non-"cloudy" features get ignored... but likely not. For the same reason that Apple doesn't ignore macOS/iOS features in favor of iCloud features: new users won't be interested switching to the platform [and then potentially subscribing] if the base platform itself isn't competitive / doesn't serve their needs.)

jazzyjackson 1y ago

I think it's really cool they can get AI money from the people who want to pay that, to give away the core for free. I can empathize with feeling their focus will be elsewhere (whatever increases revenue) but I figure AI isn't magic, they need to have the rest of the creative suite work well to, yaknow, synergize Edit: I'll add that I much prefer purchasing perpetual licenses for software that can work without a cloud component. Opus, Sublime, Mathematica, totally agree that paying for software aligns incentives. But if it is online, it's a SaaS, and they can't very well offer you cloud services forever at a one time cost. (Rsync.net has a deal to prepay ~4 years worth upfront and they'll let you use it for life but it's capped at 1TB)

nightski 1y ago
I'm guessing they are giving the core away for free to collect training data.
- blackqueeriroh 1y ago
  You can opt out of the telemetry sharing
  - usefulcat 1y ago
    So they say, for now, for some definition of "telemetry" and "sharing", caveat caveat caveat..
    - ToucanLoucan 1y ago
      Asterisks and super-text numbers, the foundation of any trusting business relationship thumbs up
- zarmin 1y ago
  They claim not to, but I am extremely suspicious. >No, your content in Affinity is not used to train AI-powered features, or to help AI features learn and improve in other ways, such as model evaluation or quality assurance. In Affinity, your content is stored locally on your device and we don’t have access to it. If you choose to upload or export content to Canva, you remain in control of whether it can be used to train AI features — you can review and update your privacy preferences any time in your Canva settings.

Razengan 1y ago

Man. This is another case in favor of open source. OSS may take years to get there but it doesn't go poof in one sudden day either.

unreal37 1y ago
Open Source absolutely stops being maintained. And worse.
- fsloth 1y ago
  Yup, source code does not stay maintainable automatically. Just that code is open does not mean anyone can or wants to do any reasonable development. The only ”safer” bets are the biggest projects providing critical infra for segments of economy like python for example.
  - alt227 1y ago
    At least if you care about it enough then if it dies you can pick it up yourself and maintain it.

reppap 1y ago

Personally I think it's great I both get the app for free and they remove all the AI from it. Couldn't get any better!

drob518 1y ago
“You can’t have AI unless you pay extra for it.” “Um… okay. No AI for me.”

brookst 1y ago

What will you recommend to people instead?

alt227 1y ago
Stick with Adobe. They may like to squeeze the money out of you but at least their tools are top tier.
- jazzcomputer 1y ago
  It simply depends on what your needs are IMO - You can do great magazine design in Affinity, brochures, flyers, logos all that stuff. The only thing I'd miss in InDesign is image expand probably. Also if you're making video games, and you don't need to export multi-res textures and work on the edge of file formats for advanced texturing etc, if your budget and needs are served by Affinity why spend on Adobe?

ineedasername 1y ago

I am unclear on the problem: are the apps, previously free, significantly more limited than their prior free versions unless/until you also purchase a subscription for the CanvaAI portions? That aside, this isn’t a new thing for Canva, they aren’t chasing AI here, in this space GenAI is chasing the use case that Canva has been filling for a while, and incorporating genai as part of that is just, you know, “hey lots of people use this ai tool for design work now so maybe we add one because like it or not it’s how thing are”. Design is the Canva space, it’s not like they did a pivot to crypto.

aeonfox 1y ago
> are the apps, previously free, significantly more limited than their prior free versions unless/until you also purchase a subscription for the CanvaAI portions? I was curious too. The FAQ says this: > Yes, Affinity really is free. That doesn’t mean you’re getting a watered-down version of the app though. You can use every tool in the Pixel, Vector, and Layout studios, plus all of the customization and export features, as much as you want, with no restrictions or payment needed. The app will also receive free updates with new features and improvements added.
- ineedasername 1y ago
  Not sure I see the problem then. Canva has a long enough track record that I don’t suspect they’re going to pull a bait and switch on the freemium and start gate keeping new features any time soon.
jerieljan 1y ago
I've been using it and so far yeah, a lot of the existing functionality and new functionality is effectively free and it generally only nags you when you use the clearly separate "Canva AI" panel. Checking the settings also tells me that Segmentation (used in Object Selection) is provided but Depth Estimation (used in Portrait Blur and Select Sampled Depth tools), Colorization (used in Colorize filter, apparently intended to colorize B&W photos) and Super Resolution (used in Super Resolve filter) are all paywalled. Honestly, I think that's fine. While I'd wish these are all available (and they could be if you looked hard enough for models that can do this) for a flat price (for parts that are not handled server-side), this is still imho mostly fair.

eddielement 1y ago

Wow. They paywall something that used to be free? You're mad. They give you something free that used to be paid, you're STILL mad! Incredible!

alt227 1y ago
You have reduced it down to the wrong components. Its not about the price, its about care and effort in development. If something free gets put behind a paywall because theres genuinely a push for growth in the software thats fair enough. Taking 3 seperately paid products and turning them into 1 freemium app which requires registering an account for is completely different IMO.

xmprt 1y ago

On the other hand, Adobe Photoshop has been amazing for years and I'd argue Affinity has already beaten them at their game. Now Adobe is pivoting to integrating AI tooling into their programs which I don't want and so if Affinity wants to try taking on Adobe on AI too but needs to charge for it, I'm all game.

citrus1330 1y ago

there is genuinely no pleasing some people