GP made a broad statement, I was replying in general following suit.
Otherwise Affinity would be the giant acquiring a much smaller Canva team.
That said, this is also further proof of why the standalone software license model died. If Affinity had a great business of their own, they wouldn’t need to sell.
Turns out if you want a software team to continue providing value to you, you should probably put them on salary (subscription).
They don't need to. They mentioned that in their FAQ:
> We have to say that selling Serif was not on our minds at all, but when Canva contacted us (only a couple of months ago!) there was something about it which just felt right.
...because it just "felt right."
that it maximises profits for HN posters?
that it maximises some abstract goodness for society?
that it provides good quality products at the lowest prices?
the fact businesses keep doing something doesn't provide any information on if that's good for anyone else.
Only the last one needs some clarification. If a business did not do things that benefit others, they wouldn't get paid. So, almost by definition, businesses do. You might argue that a bigger value could be provided in another way, but it definitely does provide value.
Such a strange statement in 2024, we all know almost no developers can afford to live off charging a fair price $20+ for software on there because people wont buy it, or charging the price people will actually pay on there which is $0.
Only way to make money on the App Store is to hammer in ads, sell data, exploit or trick people into subscriptions.