not to burst your bubble kdsclocan.....
but if you read the "fine print" it clearly says on Quarkexpress's website in order to create a custom app you must first subscribe to the Framework ($499 per app you create) and "Quark's issue management service (payable per issue... currently $350 per publication and valid only for a year)" This is the current solution they are "phasing out" and moving to:
Quarkexpress 9 will have Aquafadas App creation solution built in (which is still in pre-release and will be added in 90 days after QuarkX9 is released) and will follow Aquafadas costs which they released yesterday... you must pay for the APP creation and then for the "issue managment license" which is only valid for one year :
a small publication (brouchure flyer.. etc) will cost $150 an app + $350 for its license *unlike Adobe you must purchase an individual license for EVERY publication you create either Free or Paid.
a "issue" publication (newspaper... magazine.. etc ) will cost $750 for per app creation + $350 multiplied by how many issues/publications you have ( they describe a publication is either:
If you want the "IN app experience" and hold all your publications inside a "newsstand app" it will $1,500 for the app creation + $350 multiplied by how many issues/publications you have... so for a magazine with 12 issues a year starting costs is roughly over $5,000 a year
All Testing will have a Watermark across the screen until you pay for the app creation and publication license.
We know so much because we have been testing the aquafadas solution for the past 3 months and Adobe DPS for the past 6 months.
So if minimally paying $500 per app (150 app creation+350 a year for the license) is a solution that sounds more palatable ---Aquafados is offering the same exact solution.. experience .. and pricing model to InDesign users. Quark just wasn't able to have their "in house" solution keep up with Adobe's DPS so they teamed up with Aquafados to have the plugin automatically distributed with the software.
so you can see although they are following a different business model Quarkexpress is singing the same tune as Adobe.. which we are staying with because we like the user experience and price.
Using tools other than for what a developer intended is nothing new and, in fact, pushes innovation more than anything else in this industry.
I don't give a hoot what Adobe intended for InDesign's interactive features: A whole helluva lot of people immediately recognized the potential far beyond the 'party line'. Adobe no doubt did as well... But they didn't care. This notion that only subscription magazines would ever be created with the new tools is silly.
This gets down to one exceedingly simple move that Adobe made that crippled this whole thing: They removed sideloading. That little tiny act would in no way destroy Adobe's plans for WORLD DOMINATION in terms of subscription digital magazines, lol. But what it did do is immediately send a message to 99.9% of their user base. That message was:
"Hi there, Little People. You had sideloading but now you don't. Have a nice day."
There isn't one technical or legal issue that I can see that would warrant the removal of sideloading. Apple doesn't seem to have a problem with it; which would be the biggest hurdle. If anyone can point out just one reason why removing sideloading was a good idea, I'm all ears.
Adobe created a new toolset within InDesign that could allow a plethora of exciting new deliverables to be created by virtually everybody; and distributed as they see fit. Their plans for DPS subscriptions should have been UTTERLY AND TOTALLY INDEPENDANT OF THAT FACT.
That they created a new toolset but then hamstrung the stuff with $ubscription nonsense is pathetic.
Once more, for posterity. DPS subscriptions should have been a totally different initiative - and completely divorced from the new tools provided within InDesign.
They did remove sideloading but they left open the capability to use Acrobat.com for viewing folios on the content viewer. While I would prefer to see sideloading there, the Acrobat.com workflow is still free. If you want to use more than one folio then get a paid subscription to Acrobat.com. The cost is $390/year which is still pretty reasonable to share those folios with colleagues.
Okay on QuarkXpress.
So are there any plans to have a universal reader on itunes/android app
store to allow for small digital magazine reading/hosting/downloading?
Someone is going to develop this and will beat Adobe to the punch if Adobe
doesn't act quickly.
I would be willing to pay a small fee for this, but not 8k per year, that's
for sure. There's already the option to make an svg e-mag, so why not just
go all the way and beat the competition? I love the Adobe Suite, don't get
me wrong, but this subscription service is insanely expensive.
Personally, i would like to see them expand upon the Acrobat.com integration option. Paying Acrobat.com customers could then expand the storage of folios in the cloud and view them only in the “viewer app” maybe even keeping this as a non-commercial option.
I hope Adobe never brings back the “sideloading” feature.. it’s a HUGE security risk. Imagine as a publisher your “folio” somehow is extracted or taken from your HDD, if the side loading option was left available, all a thief would have to do is distribute your folio to the world and anyone could use the viewer app to see your content. I applaud Adobe for keeping all the folio production inside the cloud and not having a folio export option. It not only keeps people from making illegal viewer applications, but it also keeps the distribution process secure.
Adobe express the Share Folio option for Acrobat was ment to replace the "sideloading" content feature
The "viewer app" will be coming across all the platforms.. so you can access your acrobat.com stored files and view them on the various devices for testing. It would be nice if they extended this type of technology to custom viewer apps.
Adobe has also started to play with other features inside of the Enterprise version of DPS. Currently a user can purchase the subscription from Itunes or from the publisher and gain access to both their print and iOS versions. This option requires extended API's and has to communicate with various payment methods and is often a complicated step because it requires a different type of authentication. I'm sure as it becomes an easier process it will trickle down into the Pro version.
Adobe's pricing model is currently in-line with everyone else's. @$6,000 a year its currently a good deal. (mag+=$6,000 a year for a multi issue app or $2,500 for a single app) (aquafados=$5,000 for a multi issue app of 12 or $500 per app)
Any sort of security risk is easily overcome by something as simple as a different file extension for items intended for sideloading vs published subscriptions.
The gaming industry is full of this kind of example - where people can create their own 3D add-on elements which are then loaded into the game under a different extension than native or purchased add-ons.
The problem with the Acrobat model is simple: It's an unnecessary series of steps that people wanting to load your content onto their devices will have to take. With sideloading, omfg, it was genius. You could even just email them a file and they point to it from iTunes and click. Done. lol. People freakin' HATE having to sign up for ANYTHING.
If people don't think it's a big deal, they've never dealt with salespeople and reps.
@Bob, I agree...the Acrobat.com fee is reasonable. I'll be upgrading as soon as we know that the new app build actually works.
But it's still entirely unnecessary for private enterprise usage. I think Adobe is going to realize this sooner rather than later and figure out a way to open this up.
Wow, can you imagine community groups and not-for-profits using this great new series of tools to reinvigorate the tired old mailers?
I just cannot believe that the only way Adobe - or ANYBODY - would allow iPad content delivery is via some fee based hosting system. It's just insane, really.
We should be able to deliver private content in 2 ways:
1. Via our own servers - in subscription type form or via push.
2. Simple email or file transfer of folios.
It really can be that simple. I know it. I feels it.
Adobe just cannot be this shortsighted. I'm way too much of a fanboy to believe that....
Im just a little lost on how
Saving.... exporting.... uploading to email... emailing... downloading... opening itunes.. transferring the file over.... and then viewing is easier than...
Saving... automatically updated on acrobat.com.. sign on the viewer app and To-dah you can view it?
If sideloading was re-introduced we would VERY QUICKLY end our service.. we have had too many issues with leaked PDF's to confidently back that kind of option.
I think an alternative solution would be a viewer app that doesn't require a sign on.... or merely a password authentication.
Scenario: You get an email ... tap a downloadpath file (which isn't an actual folio.. just merely tells the viewer app where to download from) ... opens up in the viewer app and either automatically begins your download of the folio .. or asks for a password before triggering the download.
This could integrate with the acrobat.com workflow of sharing and decreases the risk of breeching Custom Viewer folios.
So i wouldn't mind seeing
A) Adobe extending the "viewer app"
B) Adobe setting up a model that allowed someone like a freelancer to develop a single app for something like $500-$600
Currently the DPS is a paid SOLUTION..but its not the only answer to the problem. Adobe has done this before between Adobe Flash video options that were exclusive to a Flash Media Server. This didn't prevent people from creating content. I mean people are acting like they want the option for free? which seems a little silly for a BRAND new technology and Adobe would probably get a large backlash from the license holders that are paying anywhere from $500 to $4,000 per month to use the Solution.
True, but a toned down version of DPS with an agreement to only publish free
material and a limited size could be done with a yearly cost of a couple
hundred bucks. spits out an app or a file type (.issue or .folio) and you
post it on a server; guy hits a link in his email or scans a qr code and
wiz-bang this opens in his android adobe content reader or ipad adobe
content reader. Looks hot and costs little. Big mags like Wired would have a
lot nicer, bigger, more remunerative content and pay big for it. Little guys
can post a 16 to 24-page catalog or brochure for free and not have all the
sexiest features, but still get the hot new look.
I hereby volunteer for the beta program!
I agree with landrvr1. This is going to blow wide open soon. This tech won't
stay holed up for long.
Someone is going to do the same thing with a gnu license or something along
those lines and have some fancy gui where a user can place all his elements
according to an Ipad screen, etc. Something like this will happen if Adobe
doesn't do it first. But Adobe should be the first; they are the leaders in
design, right? They will profit greatly with it.
Isn't that kind of what i said with
Scenario: You get an email ... tap a downloadpath file (which isn't an actual folio.. just merely tells the viewer app where to download from) ... opens up in the viewer app and either automatically begins your download of the folio .. or asks for a password before triggering the download. "
So i mean its more of a question of extending the functions of the viewer app.. and its intergration with acrobat.com (which is $360 a year or $19 a month) and if you wanted paid content or custom viewer apps... you pay the $499 a month for the FULL DPS.
Its pretty simple to use Flash to make an iOS app..
Like i said before.. we have apps out there that we exported from InDesign ....imported to flash.. and spit out an IOS application.. BING BANG BOOM. And now with CS5.5 both dreamweaver and flash do iOS Bing Bang Boom. DPS is an ENTIRE SOLUTION ... i mean just want to chop the parts off that you dont like? I would anticipate an option like your talking about coming about in CS6
In response to:
I agree with landrvr1. This is going to blow wide open soon. This tech won't
stay holed up for long.
Okay. But I don't want to make a whole app. (pout)
I just basically want a tablet-optimized magazine with some hot factor to
it; doesn't have to be as hot as Wired; It can open in safari for all I
care. I just want to be able to put it together in indesign (I'm no web
designer) and specify some interactive elements, test it, host it, and send
it out. And I don't want to wait for CS6! I just bought CS5 and then there's
CS5.5 and what, I have to wait for CS6 to handle the reason why I bought
lol. Well, it's certainly not easy using Flash to make an app, unless I'm missing something. Still requires AS3; which a shocking number of people still haven't embraced. I've barely gotten into it myself.
No, the new InDesign features...and the digital mag format in general that Adobe has created..is suberb on many design levels; not the least of which is the total ease of use and no actionScript required.
There's still 2 separate issues in my mind:
1. The tools and what you create with them.
2. Distribution method.
Adobe has chosen to blur the lines between the 2 in some hamfisted attempt (ie thinly veiled) to tell some ease-of-use story, and that sucks.
Email link with download path that automatically opens the app and loads content? Awesome
Being forced to use ANY Adobe based server to make that happen? WRETCHED.
I don't get why anyone would be so gung-ho with that solution. Wouldn't you want the freedom to ABSOLUTELY control that content on your own servers? I just simply don't understand how these always turn into 'people want something for nothing' or 'Adobe deserves to get paid' conversations?
It's got nothing to do with who deserves to get paid. It's nothing to do with Adobe having the right to make money off of distribution.
It's everything to do with choice and options and the freedom - as a customer of Adobe's - to control my own content and distribute as I see fit.
Adobe wanting to make a huge move into monopolizing content media distribution is nothing short of madness. It works for Apple and their app store. But Adobe is not Apple.
I'll say again: Adobe is not Apple.
Adobe should open this whole thing up and then let customers decide how best to distribute content. At the same time, let them continue to offer their own DSP hosting plans as a COMPETITIVE option. If it's so incredible...so reliable and amazing...it will succeed.
But this unholy marriage we now have between the tools and distribution control? Train wreck.
Oh, and one more vital point that speaks to security issues.
We've got a whole lot of Fortune 500 clients who are no doubt looking into this for their own use - not only as sales tools, but inter-office corp monthly magazines and the like.
I can say - with 150% certainly - that not one of those companies would ever let ANYONE host their content. No way, no how. It's either their own servers or nothing at all.
So...they will look elsewhere for a solution.
Translation? Adobe loses money.
A lot of money.
Thus why Adobe secured large names from the get go.
Again its a SOLUTION.. not a a'la carte feature inside indesign. If you look where its located inside InDesign.. its under EXTENSION. And your mad cause Adobe wants to have control over the destiny of its own file format and how its handled? i mean in all honesty the Digital Publishing Suite is something other than Indesign.. its a completely different product.. it just extends INTO InDesign. From the sounds of it your issue is with the features inside Adobe InDesign.. rather than the features of the Adobe Digital Publishing suite.
I'll have to agree with Landrvr1 on this one. It should be distributed such
that content can be hosted independently and not on a subscription and not
at an enormous price. If that means scaling it down, so be it.
But what im saying is that your still trying to morph Indesign and Digital Publishing Suite into this One Huge application.
Adobe Indesign Currently exports into formats such as Epub.. html .. pdf.. which are visable inside of an iOs device.
With the DPS EXTENSION you can create another format for the DPS solution. (the solution takes care of all three parts.. conversion.. app creation and distribution)
So because the DPS is something outside of Indesign.. even without the distribution part .. you still should be held accountable to pay for the app creation and conversion. And if you only create single folio apps.. your never actually charged for the distibution.
As far as large enterprise goes.. (even though the large publishing companies Adobe currently has signed dont seem to be having an issue with it).. Adobe could make a move to add the .folio Format to its other product .. the Adobe Content Server. but who knows.
lol. Well. From the InDesign page at Adobe.com
Folio Producer tools
Create and preview digital magazines, newspapers, and catalogs with engaging elements such as 360° object rotation and image panoramas for a wide variety of tablets. Upload to Adobe Digital Publishing Suite for further production and distribution.
The tools are part of InDesign - extensions/addons or not. You aren't using a separate program.
Adobe didn't force people to use Flash Media Server (or some other Adobe sponsored server); in part because people would have simply stormed the castle in protest. But now they have a new opportunity to lock up the distribution. It doesn't matter what is said or how it's justified or how it's rationalized.
It reduces choice and freedoms that all of us have enjoyed pretty much since since Day 1 with Adobe.
And that sucks.
Hey, let's back up a second. I'd like to understand the distribution flow with an Acrobat.com account.
I've just created a new folio that I'd like to distribute to 300 salespeople and reps in my company.
Each one creates their own Acrobat.com account. Done. (exceedingly painful, but done)
So....how exactly do they get that folio?
Do I have to manually add each of them to a share list?
Do I have to manually email them a link?
How exactly does this work?
For the Professional Edition hosting service of DPS, there's this blurb:
Okay, that sounds nice. But how exactly are in-house readers notified?
Again is your issue with Indesign? or the Digital Publishing suite?
Everything that you keep mentioning sounds like a limitation complaints of InDesign CS5.5
I get your frustration.. in a perfect world Adobe would extend inDesign to export (because currently you can only create and preview as the website says) the .folio format.. but then your waiting around for a 3rd party developer to make some kind of reader...
Take PDF for example.. although basic PDF is supported in iOS and is a lot more secure than the folio file.. Adobe doesn't bother developing a viewer app for it. It takes a lot of money and man power to keep your app up-to-date to the various marketplace standards... so if you fully delete the DPS and just make it part of InDesign.. there is no money to continue development....
From what i grab.. you want the .folio format to no longer be associated JUST with the DPS solution and to become and open standard?
And again your argument went to distribution.. your only charged for distrubution when you have a multifolio application. $499 a month to create as many apps as you want is BY FAR the best deal out there at the moment. Other solutions are charging $500 PER APP.
The .folio format and the DPS have only been on the market for less than two weeks.. cut it some slack lol Let Adobe make its money so that it can eventually make it an open format.... but if they change the rules of the Current DPS within the next year they can expect a lot of angry people demanding refunds...
Ok, sorry, still confused about the pricing thing... You said 499 $ per month for as many SINGLE FOLIO apps, I agree that this is BY FAR the best deal at the moment. But what is with the fee per download?? Is the fee per download only charged with MULTI FOLIOS??
Have you read the staggering number of complaints by people up and down the Adobe forums on the cost issue? Or at any number of other forums? This isn't just a few people whining about this or that. Or nitpicking. These are longtime customers who have got serious concerns. Not sure why you continue to cheerlead on this issue? I'm a fanboy too, but I'm dumbfounded how anyone can think this is even remotely sensible.
$500 per month excludes a vast amount of folks. It's a serious amount of cash.
Glad it works for you and Martha Stewart, though. lol.
If your application is only one folio.. like say you make an app for a book.. the folio file is already inside the application that Apple distributes.So Adobe doesn't charge you a "folio credit". For applications that allow "in app purchase" or book and magazine stand style applications that require Multi-folio downloads.. you are charged a folio credit for every folio downloaded from the server. This is where people are getting upset because your folio downloads only remain current if your license is current. Adobe cuts off the distribution if your no longer paying.
And yes landrvr1 we have participated in much of the pricing debate. Adobe adjusted the price a few times and right now.. compared to the other products on the market.. $499 is the best value( compared to the 6 different products we have tested). Enterprise level is about 10X that.
So landrvr1? what do you want for free?
What kind of a debate was this, exactly? I shudder to think what the price was like before the debate? Or did the price go up AFTER the debate? lol.
Let's take the Chicago Reader. One of the finest FREE weeklies in the nation. Let's say that they would like to do an iPad or Android version.
There's no way that they can afford $500 month. No way, no how.
So, they are screwed.
Same goes for everyone else except maybe Advance Publications. lol. Jebus.
I always HATE getting into ethical territory with these types of issues because I'm an all around free market kinda guy. It makes me cringe when people go down that road in debates when talking about private enterprise. If Adobe wants to charge $10,000 per month, so be it. Knock themselves out.
But in this case I'm going to make an exception and go against my usual position and state, quite simply: Adobe is on morally and ethically shaky ground with this entire pricing structure. Oh how wonderful that the Rupert Murdocks of the world will be able to afford the DPS pricing structure. But as for the little guy?
I only say this because Adobe - almost since Day 1 - have always waxed poetic about the democratizing of publishing as a result of their products and how proud they are to be a part of that.
I'm not expecting anything for free, and it's disengenuous to suggest otherwise.
I would, however, be willing to pay $100 per month to use their servers for the hosting of our folios. Folios which, incidently, would be for in-house use only and not part of any magazine subscription plan.
I love InDesign. I'm still relatively new to the product, but it's a great platform for this kind of thing.
No new product, please. Well...unless we're talking about an app creator in which I won't have to freakin learn C++, lol.
Just another way to export out of InDesign...and keep the sideloading option...is all I'm asking for.
In the meantime...
$100 going once. $100 going twice...
I just know that if I go to the higher ups and tell them it's gonna cost over $5000 to send digital brochures out to folks, they will take me behind the woodshed and beat me senseless.
As well they should, lol
But creating that option more or less deteriorates the Digital Publishing Suite and its current paying customers. Folio, how it is today residing only on adobe servers, protects large and little publishers from worry that their content will be able to "sideload" without purchase (much like the exploit many of digital publishers fight with leaked PDF formats).. this is kind of what apple did with the locked Itunes format. As it is today.. "folio" is for only the DPS solution.. its not some old format Adobe just now decided to cut off your access to... it was developed and meant to link directly into the SOLUTION.
Options i see:
Adobe could create Another new export format that is compatible with iOS and allow 3rd party to develop a viewer (much like they did with PDF)
Adobe could make PDF a more compliant file format for iOS
Apple develop's their own Publishing method
Yeah, your first option there is the best. Keep the content creation within InDesign, but totally separate the export types and viewer. (Though the viewer could, arguably, stay the same).
I think I mentioned this earlier about a different export type. You could literally just change the extension and probably a minimal amount of program code in order for that to work.
The PDF option is an interesting one, but dead in the water for so many reasons.
Well i mean with the "extendability" your asking (unlinking from the adobe server), adobe shouldn't be obligated to develop two seperate viewers. Currently how the viewer is set up.. its ment only to be a preview and testing tool... not a solution for distribution. But then we rotate around my suggestion of extending the viewer app to handle a distrubition from Acrobat.com lol
So i guess the next year should be interesting.. CS6 should be interesting too lol
And as Bob said above.. the Desktop viewer (pre-viewer) is still in place and accessed when you preview your folio file.
Both the Desktop preview and The content view app were developed for Testing/previewing purposes not distribution.
Adobe announced to the pre-release that they are still working on both a webviewer.. and desktop viewer as distribution options.. neither were ready for testing or release. They quoted the limitations of AIR (like it doesn't support PDF) .. caching.. and security of files as some of the issues they are working on.
Europe, Middle East and Africa