1. Affinity Software For Mac

I have done so, and it works. However, it seems to me a little too generous from the Affinity people. In this setup I can go around and put the software on all machines of my family and friends and whatever. They can then run it until they need to reinstall or update for some reason, at which point they need me again. While I definitely hugely dislike periodic subscription fees, there is a middle way too: for example, I would be very happy if the licence covered say 5 machines (as much AppStore items do).

That would allow me and my wife to use it for our purposes (which are purely non-commercial), plus an extra machine or so (as in my case) but not an unlimited number. After all, the developers have to pay the rent, even after the peak of initial purchases is over. Then there is the question of upgrades: I don't mind to pay for upgrades once in a while if the changes are significant.

Not from, say, version n.x.y to n.x.y+1, but it would be OK from n.x to (n+1).x What I do object to is a monthly fee and a constant activation-check over the network. With Affinity at least I can sleep well at night: the product will continue to work even if I go to Tasmania for a 6-month quiet creative work period, without an internet connection(.).:-) (.) should you not know: Tasmania is very well connected to the net, they had the first high school with its own website. While I definitely hugely dislike periodic subscription fees, there is a middle way too: for example, I would be very happy if the licence covered say 5 machines (as much AppStore items do). Just FYI, for any app purchased through the Mac App Store the license is not limited to 5 machines.

The licensing requirement is either one license for all Macs the buyer owns or controls if used for non-commercial purposes, or for commercial purposes either one license per seat (multiple users on one Mac) or one license per commercial user (one user on multiple Macs). ITunes purchases have different licensing requirements, but not since Apple stopped selling 'Family Pack' apps on optical disks has there been a 5 machine limit for apps.

The closest thing to that is Family Sharing, but that limit is for sharing purchases with five other family members (6 total). So, I'm now a Mac owner with some serious Affinity gear loaded up, sorted! Keep in mind that all Mac App Store purchases are tied to the Apple ID you used when you bought them, & the licenses are non-transferable - you cannot sell or transfer ownership of the license to anyone else. Some MAS apps are eligible for, including the Affinity ones.

All updates to MAS apps are done through the MAS Store App, which can be accessed from the Apple menu (as 'App Store'). There are several options in System Preferences App Store you can set, including to download app updates in the background, or to download & install them.

Very disheartening. I had hoped to switch to Affinity products from Adobe Creative Cloud, but I can't believe that you can't simply do a Mac at office & pc at home situation is hard to believe in the current software environment. Every other design/photo app I have allows that between at least 2 machines if not 3. Yes, and for the privilege of a dual OS license, you'll pay about $500 USD a year for all the applications, $300 or so a year for the single app plan, or about $120 USD a year for the Photoshop only plan. But do remember to never cancel your plan. Or, you can spend about $100 for both OS licenses (for one title) and obtain perpetually licensed software. It's a really, really tough choice.

Not happy about this. I can clearly only use the software on one computer at once; my other computer just happens to have a different operating system. Be that as it may, Serif/Affinity has to offset the substantial costs of development, marketing, & supporting each OS individually somehow, so if they did not sell separate licenses for each version, the purchase price for a multi-OS license would be higher to begin with (much as it is with other apps that do that). That means buyers that use only one OS would have to pay more for something they could not use. Shortsighted, I'd say.

Other applications don't enforce this regressive policy. (Until Affinity comes to its senses and changes it, that is.)) Some applications only allow installation on one computer. Like Cyberlink and Movavi video editing software. As I found out recently Serif allow installation on all privately owned computers per OS. Hardly regressive on Serif's part!

As say's why should PC user's have to pay extra for Mac development and support and different help files in multiple languages, etc. Or vice versa. This stuff all costs. If you are willing to pay four or five times the price for Affinity, those costs could be covered, or your could buy er, other software. The question is, how many users would have to pay more for a few people who use Affinity on both platforms. And bearing in mind Affinity apps need quite high spec machines to run on effectively, if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford that, the cost of Photo is tiny in comparison.

And many allow only two instances to run concurrently, which can be a real PITA for those with several networked computers in their homes who prefer not to have to keep track of which apps they have to quit or close on which machines to run them on the one they are sitting in front of. IMO, it does not get any more 'regressive' than that. The EULA for Serif’s “legacy” applications for Windows allows two installations but does not permit them to be run concurrently. As if that were not sufficiently restrictive, the secondary installation must be on a portable computer, and that copy may only be run by the primary user of the main computer. How’s that for “regressive”??

Affinity Software For Mac

How’s that for “regressive”?? Pretty good, I think, & that is for a Windows-only app! It has been too many years since I had to deal with this stuff on our Macs to remember all the details, but at one point we had 3 networked Macs in our home. Not infrequently, trying to launch an app with a 'two concurrent' licensing restriction would fail on one Mac even when it was not running on the others, apparently because the pre-launch mechanism to check for networked computers did not wake sleeping ones & I guess just assumed they might be running the app, or something like that.