Is it possible to publish a single app, produced with adobe dps, that is optimized for retina display as well as for the older ipads?
so that a customer could buy the app at itunes, and depending on his device, he gets the ipad1/2-version or the retina-version of the single magazine.
Yes, that's correct. If you don't rely too heavily on smooth scrolling articles or text in slideshows, using the PDF image format for articles in a 1024x768 folio looks virtually identical on all iPad models.
Bummer. I must have misread something along the way. I was under the impression renditions were built in for single-issue apps.
So, just be to sure I have this right, if we want to use single issue and optimize for iPad 1/2/3 (without using PDF), we're looking at:
iPad 1/2 version @ $395 + iPad 3 version @ $395 = $790
Is that correct?
Looking into the Professional Subscription now. Looks like if we want to ever get onto the Android and Kindle Fire platforms we would need to move to Professional anyway.
The thing we liked about single issue is that each folio was its own app. We publish books for local markets. Our brand means nothing to the consumer because we partner with a local historical organization, newspaper or TV station to publish each book. Our idea was to publish a single-issue ebook for each book.
Is it true that the only way the Professional Subscription works is to have one app with multiple folios as "issues" within that app? If so, it seems perfectly suited for a magazine, but exactly the opposite of what we want as a geographically-zoned book publisher.
Tangent to this,
If we get the monthly DPS Pro is there any minimum number of months? I've been scouring the FAQ and PDFs and haven't found answers to basic questions like this but might've missed it. IOW, if i have a long-form publication that is only updated once a year let's say... and I want that on all iPads and larger Android talbets... I could create all the content in 1024x768 documents with images of sufficient resolution to scale up iPad 3 (plus a document set for the Android device)... get a monthly pro subscription, then build 2 folios (one for all iPads one for Android), and as long as I submit everything within that 30 days, I'm OK? Or is the process of submission to Adobe and then Apple's store sufficiently long that it ends up being more than 1 month?
The whole thing seems pretty convoluted with all these different rules, time periods and workarounds for Folios and different devices and multiple subscription levels.
What small companies want to is sign up 1x to produce 1 app for multiple devices, and not have it be time-limited. Adobe really isn't offering that. It's marketed as one app but should really be marketed as "one app per device" IMHO.
Just looping around on this...
I just bought a pro account and in going through the Viewer Builder process, it is clear single issue apps are possible, but they don't support renditions. I hope Adobe fixes this soon. We need to have both of those features: a single issue and rendition support.
I'll throw my hat in the ring here.
We've been testing building a single-issue app at 2048x1536 in PDF format.
When building the app, we've found that the content scales down just fine for the iPad 1/2, save for one bug. This bug is regarding scrolling text frames. Text below the scroll point is not re-rendered/scaled for the older devices. I'm hoping Adobe can come up with a viewer update to resolve it.
That's not to say there aren't more bugs (what happens if you put an image in a scroll frame that goes off the page/viewable area, etc. -- don't know, haven't tested...), but it seems very plausible to build an app this way as long as you give yourself time/set milestones to test.
Testing is a little time consuming, because you can't simply view a 2048x1536 folio on the iPad1/2 in a DPS viewer. You have to build the actual app with the folio at that size. So I would suggest building the app at milestones, and getting interactives done as early as possible if you try that route.
Adobe's official stance has been pushing either using a multi-folio viewer app for single-issue apps or building at 1024x768, however.
thank you Casey.
This is usefull information. I think you can test by using push to device,
but as we know, the result might be different from what we get by updating
via the cloud (wich isnt possible in this case).
Hope to get my own results soon, but it might be a bit tricky.
I just tested the idea that 1024x768 folios look "virtually identical" on the new iPad.
Here's what I did to test renditions and see how both folio resolutions look:
I hope this helps others struggling in the future.
I think he's saying there's not a need to build 2048x1536 InDesign documents, which would jive with the most recent whitepaper I've read.
But I'm not sure if renditions are necessary if the viewer can downscale properly. Renditions seems like a bad idea for a single-issue app, as it would have to serve/bake both version of the folio into the app in order to serve the proper one.
From our perspective, adequate would mean no noticeable difference. I supposes what's noticeable and what's not is subjective, so really the issue is that there's any difference at all. Renditions solves the problem altogether, but it being limited to multi-issue apps renders it useless for our purposes (single-issue apps). Upscaling/downscaling shouldn't be required.
I tested both PDF and automatic (which I assume is JPG) settings. In PDF, the text is sharp but the images are still upscaled, which is not acceptable. It also doesn't give with our publications goals in that we have a few smooth-scroll articles and eventually want to publish to Android. I'm sure you can see the folly in explaining to our client, "some articles will have sharp text, other will not, and none will have sharp images."
Right, with renditions, single-issue apps would be at least twice their current size. But I want to know whether Chris used the PDF image format, and what specifically looks "far from adequate."
In my testing, there is one general area in which 1024x768 PDF articles look noticeably worse on the iPad 3 -- text in slideshows, text in Smooth Scrolling articles (which currently aren't PDF), and text in scrollable frames. To my eye, the iPad 3 handles images from 1024x768 folios reasonably well in every situation. Chris, did you have a different experience?
See my detailed response above (I'm guessing you posted before you saw my first response).
I took a screen cap with my iPad 3 of the 1024 folio and the 2048 folio. See the linked images below for a comparison. I used PDF format.
1024 - http://cl.ly/FoYa
2048 - http://cl.ly/Fo1p
You can see the text remains sharp in both, but the image behind it loses a ton of detail/sharpness in the 1024 version.
Why even bring up Android? It’s not part of the Single Edition.
My experience is the same as Bob B’s and I don’t mind telling you that it’s more because I was finding something I went looking for. The client never even noticed.
I’m not looking for a debate here but I really think you don’t have a full understanding of how this stuff works. The way renditions work is that the viewer downloads the appropriate folio.
In single edition, the folio and viewer are prepackaged as one download. With a multifolio viewer, the folios need to be hosted somewhere. That needs to be paid for.
How much would you be willing to pay for a viewer that was limited to two folios? How much would you be willing to pay for each download? Monthly hosting?
I'm less concerned about file size than quality. Of course it would be best if including multiple renditions in a single-issue app was optional for those more concerned about file size than quality.
I'm not concered with how DPS works, or even the business model. That's Adobe role. I'm offering feedback based on how our business works, and what features we need in order to use DPS. Although DPS does a number of things very well, it is a much more closed publishing workflow than, say, HTML. We are currently pursuing HTML publishing alongside DPS publishing, and the current limitations of DPS has HTML in the lead.
Again, I don't care how it works, I'm just stating what we need to be able to use DPS in our business.
When you do print are you unconcerned about what type of press the job will be run on? Do you design blindly for any kind of press on any kind of paper?
I’m not looking for a fight here, I’m trying to make you understand that what you want isn’t as simple as hosting two folios in one viewer. And your remark about being unconcerned with size is completely unrealistic.
You could well push the size of an app past one gigabyte. How much interest do you think that would generate?
Like print, we all have to design according to the medium that we’re publishing to.
And since you brought it up, you do realize that you can create pretty much the whole thing using HTML, right?
Actually, the print parallel is exactly the way I'm approaching DPS. If I'm printing 150 line screen and an image is 150dpi (or anything less than 300dpi), that's an issue that needs to be fixed. I'm not going to just run it and hope the client doesn't notice. The image is either the correct resolution, or below the correct resolution.
In the case of DPS, I am unable to use the correct resolution for both iPad 1/2 and iPad 3 if I want to distribute a single-edition app. What I want is to be able to target devices and ensure the correct resolution folio is rendered on each device. Renditions is exactly the right feature to accomplish this, but it being limited to multi-issue apps is what's tripping me up. I understand the way the feature is implemented now will not allow for it to exist in single-issue apps. My hope is Adobe changes the way it works and considers renditions an essential feature, regardless of the type of app. In other words, renditions as it is now feels like leveraging Adobe's already-existing services to accomplish a great feature, but perhaps a fresh look at the feature is what's needed to move it beyond its current limitations.
As for file size, I did not say I'm not concerned about it. Rather, I said I'm less concerned about it than quality. For our business, quality is top priority. Our clients and customers have a discerning eye. The image comparison I posted above should illustrate the vast quality difference and the folly in assuming 1024 folios look "nearly identical" or "good enough" on the new iPad.
I'm posting my feedback here thinking Adobe might like to know that a small publishing company like ours is evaluating DPS and coming to the conclusion we may be better off moving away from Adobe's tools altogether, including InDesign, and working in HTML.
That still gets back to the technology. A single edition folio is self contained. Renditions are downloaded to an empty shell.
The only suggestion I can make at this time is that you create separate apps for iPad1/2 and iPad3.
And keep in mind that this isn’t necessarily all on Adobe, it’s very much on Apple, too.
What would be great is if we could host our own folios but that’s not going to fly without spending some very serious dollars on enterprise level accounts with Adobe and Apple.
I wholeheartedly agree about hosting things ourselves. We currently host more than 95TB of data in Amazon's S3, so hosting doesn't scare us (in terms of how to accomplish ir or cost). Mag+ allows for hosting of your own files, which is pretty attractive. There are many things about Mag+ I don't like, but self hosting is a really nice feature.
I understand the technology isn't there, yet, for what I want with DPS. My reason for posting was not to propose it's a bug, or something that could be developed quickly. The reason for my posting was to put it out there that some publishers, like us, need renditions to be more like a built-in feature across app types, and hope someone at Adobe agrees at some point.
For the time being, we will be talking with our client about the options if we stick with DPS (as opposed to jumping ship and going HTML). One such option is selling two single-issue apps, a regular version and an "HD" version. Of course that's quite clunky to customers, so our client may not go for it.
In any case, thanks to Adobe for the forum to discuss these things. I hope my comparison images helps others see the stark difference in resolutions and shows the need for renditions.
Yes -- Without knowing what interactives you have, it's hard for me to tell you what your experience will be, but it's worth a shot.
Scrolling text frames are problematic as I'd mentioned above, but that may be fixed in the short term.
Im sure there are probably several other issues, but I'm not aware of them.
It's not really worth testing, Casey. I just ran another test this morning, and 2048x1536 folios don't work well on the iPad 1/2. The text in slideshows looks like it was scanned from a fax, and there are performance problems. The dev app I created, which was basically the Advanced Overlays folio in the DPS Tips app, crashed several times. As I mentioned, the 1024x768 folios with PDF articles work passably well on the iPad 3, but not as well as multi-folio renditions.
in a 1024 PDF folio text surely looks great (unless it is not in a
slideshow or scrollable frame).
but images, even static ones in the layout are still rasterized and resized
for 72dpi 1024px use for iPad1 and iPad2 and therefore look pixelated on
this is a lot more subtile than the pixelation on text.
but images in a 2048 folio look gorgeous and pretty, crisp and detailed.
they are -feeling- better.
I have to agree with Chris. I was researching DPS options for producing a single edition app for a client, but this issue really is an insentive not to further go into this solution any more. One more question: Does Adobe have any plans to offer a Single Edition that works on IPad 1/2 and 3 in the future?
Can anyone point me at an example of an app in Apple's store that has one version for ipad 1/2 and a 2nd for ipad 3? I can't seem to find any. I can find universal apps listed for ipone and ipad, apps that show up as iphone and HD versions of the apps for ipad, apps that are limited to certain hardware (iphone 4 only) but none that have the same app show up as ipad 1/2 and then another download for ipad3.
Unlike the Google marketplace, the store doesn't filter apps out to the appropriate version for your device.
Embedding both SD and HD folios in 1 app isn't going to cut it here due to download sizes.
We are looking at alternative solutions to this problem but I can't promise any immediate product offerings.
Personally I find text quite pixelated when an SD folio is viewed on iPad3, which is pretty disappointing as text should look pin sharp on the iPad3. So I'm sure the only thing to do for the HD device is to create at 2048 resolution. Obviously file size does come in to play, but then compounded by the fact, that most of the time I cant use PDF file format, as it creates dead areas in scolling frames. But I'm now used to the continuous work arounds, its almost part of the challenge :-)
NB John I hope to have an App (single issue) out in a few weeks with 2 versions SD and HD I'll keep you posted if you are interested.
I’d certainly be interested…but FWIW, I’m not seeing that big a problem.
We have pages on an app that we’re just testing now and without zooming you really need to be looking for the difference on the scrollable text and text in MSOs.
We will have two apps (SD, HD) up on the App Store in the next month or so. See my detailed post on client feedback on the process here:
I'll post once we have them both up for others to see.
This is really bad design, sorry.
And I would not rely on apple to approve a few app-tandems like this.
Also, this brings so many other problems in terms of marketing, updating and device visibility in the app store.
The former way of using "HD" in the app name to distinguish non-universal apps that are separate for iPhone and iPad. Because the HD-iPad version brought a totally new set of interaction models, display layouts and wire frames, it was OK to submit and charge twice.
You did not found two apps of the same iPhone app for retina and non-retina.
This would be just against apple's philosophy of app shipment.
I really hope you get your app live and that your efforts in creating both will be rewarded.
But I really hope this will be no standard in the future.
And we heard adobe is working on addressing something in that area and hope we can see some improvements later this year.
Forgive me but what else can you do other than create 2 Apps? std def and hi-def. What would happen with an Objective C app for instance?
What happens with iphone 3 and 4 apps? Are they created as one App but the content changes dynamically? I guess it must be like that if Johannes is makeing the point. But I dont agree that Apple would not approve 2 versions for std and hi-res screens, then again they can be a funny bunch!
I suppose, though if John M is asking to be informed when Apple approves both, then reading between the lines, Adobe dont actually know for sure that they will be both approved!!