I'm glad Adobe has this forum (thanks). Even after reading through PDFs, product pages and watching Adobe TV presentations, there are so many variables that it makes my brain hurt.
I mean that in terms of what you can and can't accomplish with certain tools and subscriptions; it makes things tougher to understand than it should be for people who use InDesign occasionally rather than every day. Here are some points of confusion. I checked FAQ and 3 pages of threads and didn't see any titles that addressed these. Sorry if Dups.
1) If I prepare my content documents, then join DPS Pro Monthly... does that mean I can pay $495 one time, and distribute my app (it's a converted long-form doc not a magazine or periodical) with a folio for each of: iPad 1/2, iPad 3, Andiod 10", Fire, as long as they are submitted within that 30 days?
2) Multi-folio Apps are often described in terms of "recurring content" or "issues"... but it seems its broader than that. Seems like every time you want an individual document (whether you update it frequently or not) to be available for a given tablet, that is one folio. IOW, devices dictate folio count too, not just the number of times you update something with new content. I was saying this in another thread but, basically DPS Single Edition is really "one app on one device" (counting iPad 1/2 as one device and assuming content devs will want to optimize a folio for ipad 3).
3) Do DPS Apps, once they are accepted by Apple and Amazon, stand completely alone from any other type of player? IOW isnt' the Adobe Content Viewer strictly for testing? There is no other "container app" buyers must use to see DPS generate content, is there? To the end user it's just like any other app?
4) Does this tree accurately reflect the content hierarchy?
InDesign Documents > Articles > Folio > Particular Device
1) Customers who subscribe to DPS with a Professional or Enterprise account usually do so to create multi-issue apps that include a library full of folios, like a magazine with a new issue that comes out each month. This is an ongoing subscription. If you stop the subscription, your customers will no longer be able to download issues in a multi-folio app after a certain period of time. Single-issue apps (iPad only) are different. Any single-issue app you create will continue to remain in the Apple Store after your subscription with Adobe ends.
2) Single Edition is the license to buy a single-issue app. A single-issue app is one single folio that's baked into the viewer app, like a children's book or special edition.
3) The Adobe Content Viewer is for testing, yes. The app you create and submit to the Apple Store is self-contained, like Angry Birds.
4) InDesign Documents or HTML > Articles > Folio(s) > App > Device
Thanks Bob, that does help clear some confusion.
Sounds like I definitely don't want either of the Pro editions; I want the app to stay out there until I buy another DPS Single license and update it (down the road).
So my final question is can a single DPS SE license cover a single-issue app for more than one device? IOW if i want to create a version optimized for both iPad types (low res and retina) can I do that? As I understand the product matrix graphic I cannot create an Android app with the Single Edition but hoping i can create optimized folios (the exact same content) for both types of ipad with one DPS purchase.
Based on what I've been told elsewhere , you'd have to release App Name and App Name HD (or something similar to differentiate between iPad 1/2 and iPad 3 apps), and you'd be paying for two single editions.
In my opinion, this is the most broke part of the pricing structure in DPS. First, we ought to be able to release apps for all platforms DPS supports with single edition (though paying for eatch platform makes sense), and renditions ought to be included as a standard feature for all DPS publications across all platforms/pricing plans.
It seems Adobe has structured the feature set and pricing scheme perfectly for magazine publishers. Book publishers, like my company, are left in an in-between state where we need some of the features of pro but have no use for multiple issues, massive download allowence, etc.
FWIW, a folio designed for iPad 1 and 2 looks quite nice on an iPad3. I have an app ready to go and both the client and myself are very happy with the result on all three devices.
As for other devices, there are so many limitation, including app size that it's not quite as simply as you're making it out to be. Single edition is a bargain and was a result of people wanting exactly what it is. There's no way Adobe is ever going to make everyone happy with this and I don't think even they thought DPS would take off the way it has. As you note, it was originally intended only for large publishers but many users have found so many other purposes for it.
I've read some of the same reports about Apple rejecting books that are more suited for epub. Our physical books are fine-art, coffee-table books. The "ebook" variants of our books are really much more than their print counterpart. We are adding lots of interactivity, extra content not found in the physical book, "live" data from the web, etc. In fact, we are hoping to find a term better than "ebook" because so far it seems to be nearly synonymous with "text-based epub."
As for the pricing structure, I hope things change. I can't live with "an iPad 1/2 folio looks quite nice on an iPad 3." That type of thinking feels like living with low-res images through pre-press for our printed books. An image either meets the standard, or it doesn't.
In the short term, we will be publishing two versions (iPad 1/2 and iPad 3) of a few of our books (SE x 6, let's say) and be limited to iOS only. Hopefully, our clients will see the value of our ebooks and we can start to move all of our titles to this format. If that were to happen, we'd have enough business to justify a pro account and could start publishing cross platform.
The key will be the ability to release each book as its own app (just like SE). You've stated in another thread that is possible with a pro account. Do you know the number of apps you can release this way with a pro account?
I think I agree 100% with the idea that, at the very least, Single Apps via Single Edition should cover as many folios as is required to optimize for however many iPad variants there are. It's great Adobe re-purosed this platform to help single app developers but they should still treat it as if it were designed that way and try to optimize the experience in every way they can.
For now sounds we have to design for iPad 1 and 2, and user higher res images so it will look good on iPad 3 I suppose. How does embedded video work? Technically iPad 3 could display an entire 1280x720 (720p) video on its screen and have room left but what would it do for iPad 1/2 then, resample the video down? If so how does the resulting video look?
Bob great tip re: Apple rejections. Any specifics as to where they draw the line? My app would have text, video, net-content for the connected iPad user, and maybe some other gizmos... but the format of the content is broken down like a book (topical groupings, etc). To open probably will have buttons for topical links, with a nice polished background. Hopefully that would pass muster? Are you doing all your background graphics at 144 ppi for workflows targeting iPad 1-3 in a single folio?
Backround graphics get placed at whatever they happen to be. They get resampled when you create the folio.
Ad for Apple...I wouldn't even begin to guess. I did a set of three apps last year for a client...the first were approved quickly and the third was rejected. We appealed it and they reversed it.
I heard someone was saying earlier that things resize to 72ppi. That makes no sense since the iPad 1/2 are 132 ppi devices and iPad 3 a little more than that. Do all images that are not interfactive get rendered into the background at 132 ppi or something different AFAYK?
All non-interactive background content on a page is resampled as one image that's 1024x768 or 768x1024 in 72 ppi (iPad 1 & 2) or 2048x1536 or 1536x2048 in 72 ppi (iPad 3). These images are not 132 ppi for the iPad 1 or 264 ppi for the iPad 3 as you suggest. In this context, "ppi" is misleading; it's not really pixels per inch. Pixel density is a better term, though it means different things to different people. If you take the Apple dimensions literally -- 1024x768 in 132 ppi -- your image would be about 14x10 inches, which is much larger than the iPad screen. But 1024x768 in 72 ppi is the right target size for the iPad screen.
The bottom line is that when you're adding background images for the iPad, the safest approach is using images with an least a 144 "effective" ppi. That way, if you use 1024x768 documents in a 2048x1536 folio that targets the iPad 3, your images will not lose any sharpness on the retina display. To understand the difference between actual ppi and effective ppi, suppose you want to create a full-screen image for your cover. If you place a 1024x768 72-ppi image, it will still look good on the iPad 3 -- the retina display handles lo-res images remarkably well -- but not as good as if you placed a 2048x1536 72-ppi image. When you scale down the image to fit within the 1024x768 document page, the actual ppi remains at 72 but the effective ppi becomes 144. (Try it. Place an image, open the Info panel, and scale the image.) When you create your iPad 1 folio, DPS creates a 1024x768 72-ppi image for the background. When you create the iPad 3 folio, DPS creates a 2048x1536 72-ppi image.
Also, a quick correction about maximum video size on the iPad 3 -- it's 1080x1920. The device won't play larger videos.
1920x1080 is 1080p. That's larger than the resolution I mentioned (1280x720).
Regarding your ppi comments, not sure the 14" theory translates. That's a print size; print dimensions don't mimic screen dimensions because the size of pixels themselves can be different (like the difference between TVs and computer monitors).
In any case, if I have to use a single folio to get an app on all 3 iPads, what do you recommend I do? Create 1024x768 and use images that are 144 ppi... and then.. what kind of folio (1024 right?)? Will that result in fuzzy looking work on the ipad 3?
Sorry about the video comment. I read too quickly and thought you were talking about 2048x1536 videos.
You're right that pixels in the digital world have different sizes on different displays. My point is that the non-interactive base image for each page is created at the device's dimensions using 72 ppi -- not 132 or 264.
Going back to the single folio for all 3 iPads, here's the simple answer (for the current set of DPS tools). If you're creating a single- issue viewer app, create a single 1024x768 folio. Use PDF image format for articles, if possible. The PDF image format preserves vectors, so vector text and vector background images scale nicely; in our tests, they look just as good on the iPad 3 as they do on the iPad 1.
There are three main drawbacks to the PDF image format, at least in terms of appearance: (1) you cannot use PDF with Smooth Scrolling articles, (2) all content in slideshows gets rasterized, which makes some text look fuzzy, and (3) when flipping quickly through articles, the article is initally blurry and then sharpens. (When you're browsing slowly, adjacent pages are preloaded into memory.) See Differences Between PDF and JPG/PNG Image Format for DPS
If you haven't seen these articles, here are a couple of other resources for targeting the iPad 3:
Thanks Bob. I don't think I'll need to use smooth scrolling (that's the "bottomless, portrait oriented" content scrolling method right?) or slideshows but I'm not 100% sure. Right now looking at static images, pan-and-zoom, videos. For MSOs (buttons are MSOs right?) I should use Photoshop Vector layers or Illustrator to make the button graphics sounds like (not rasterized)...
Bob L. - Can you provide any more info on Apple rejecting apps that look like books? We are creating multimedia books for children with reading disabilities, and have to retain format, size of text, linebreaks, audio, etc. They have to be bundled in a multifolio viewer for clasroom use.
I don't know why this has to be so confusing. As a producer of plain ol' ebooks and wanting to take advantage of all the technology has to offer, why can't Adobe or Apple or somebody just tell me straight out where to start? Do I try to go DPS or not? Like the above commenters I want to do coffee table books with bells and whistles, and children's books with interactivy of some sort. Do I start in InDesign and deploy with DPS, or is there some other workflow I need to learn?
Yes, Adobe designed DPS with Conde Nast in mind, but they knew that the rest of us needed it too. All I want is a a teeny bit of direction. I don' have the time or resources to develop a book and THEN see if it was the right way to do it. My clients sure as hell aren't willing to take that gamble with me.
CS6 looks awesome—the tools seem to be what we need—but how do know if what I've created can be deployed to the ebooks market and in what format?
Which way do I go? Where do I start? What and how do I export something that can be sold?
Please throw me a bone!
Neither the forum users nor Adobe know your specific intentions, circumstances, current skillset, etc. We can't tell you if DPS is the best tool to use for your projects, only you can figure that out. My advice would be to learn to use the tools well enough to create a 5 page sample book that would employ the different types of interactivity, etc. that you can't get using your current tools (ePub). If you're looking for somewhere to start learning here's the main Help & Learning guide for Adobe's DPS:
You can freely preview and share the folios you create using the Adobe Content Viewer app that's available for iOS and Android.
There are other companies with digital publishing solutions, but you'll have to learn how to use them as well to see if they meet your needs. For the money Adobe is very competitive, and with the ability to publish unlimited single edition apps with a Creative Cloud subscription (coming soon) it will be hard to beat them for one-off apps like interactive books. Here are a few of the digital publishing alternatives:
The Baker Framework is intended for creating interactive ebook apps so you may find it worth checking out:
If all you're looking to do is create ePubs then you don't want the DPS system.
This thread looks pretty informative, may I jump in with one more question:
Once I learned from here that PDF folio can include all kinds of interactive overlays, the only thing missing for me, is text search. Regular PDF has text selection and search, but I don't I see anything like that in ACV on iPad, is it supported?
More specifically: if I produce PDF folio as a standalone application with a DPS Single, is there a conventional way to include text search feature, maybe by customizing menu?
Have anyone tried to produce searchable PDF folio for IOS?
Hi, Bob - My new APP made with DPS was just rejected by Apple as "Primarily a book", even though it has many interactive features. I have replied & requested a review, "Please reconsider.." I have made an composite image pointing to many of the interractive pages, and made a list of 33 APPs on the APP Store that are essentially books, from Dr. Seuss to a Bible reference to a Sci-Fi fantasy book. Hoping my appeal will be successful. If so, I will gladly share my list-of-33. Meanwhile, I sure wish I had been warned about this "too much like a book problem." I did not see this discussion-thread until after the rejection. ..Steve Dunwell, Back Bay Press.
BTW - who are these people who sit as Judges in Review of APPS..?
This is very distressing to hear as we are using DPS also to develop special education books that are not able to be created with traditional/Epub/Apple tools. If it continues will have to cease subscribing to DPS. Adobe management needs to make this a priority and fight this issue with Apple because after all - it's only a matter of time before Apple get's their newstand and subscription stuff sorted out and starts starts rejecting the broader Adobe DPS/Periodical customer base claiming their apps are "Primarily a magazine".
I believe Adobe has a great deal of leverage with Apple in spite of their occaisional squabbles, given that Adobe product lines keep the Mac platform viable… and at least Adobe is able speak to someone at Apple about this unfair and abusive change in policy, whereas we users are not. I want Adobe to be proactive on this as it affects us all. As long as Apple gets their 30% why should they care whether its from books or apps? I thought in the wake of the lawsuits over price fixing Apple might be a little more wary of their actions.
Where in fact has Apple actually posted these rules about not creating Apps that look like books, and why doesn’t the marketing materials and DPS sales web pages mention these use restrictions. We spoke to Adobe sales reps and resellers at length about what we were going to use DPS for, and no mention was made of this.
Believe what you want…NOBODY has any pull at Apple for things like this.
It’s their store and if you want to sell your product there, you play their rules, which, AFAIK, haven’t changed one bit in regard to this type of thing.
Following up on recent rejection as "primarily a book." I asked for a review, and the decision was reversed.
My appeal was supported by:
1. Big composite image showing 16 screen-grabs with interactive features highlighted, + circles & arrows
2. List of 33 "Apps that are much like books" on the App Store (I will send my list if you ask)
3. Image of 5 APPS as they appear on the APP store, much like a book (Dr. Seuss, for example; also the Bible)
4. Cover letters (2x) emphasizing the concept.."so much more than a book"
Rejection was saturday. Acceptance was monday....one working day?
much relieved now -
Steve Dunwell...Back Bay Press
Our app was just rejected on Friday also. It's a Single-Edition app, so I wonder if Single-Edition apps are more likely to be rejected for being too "booklike" than Multi-Issue?
The reasoning we got was this:
"10.6 We found the user interface of your app is not of sufficient quality to be appropriate for the App Store. Apps that provide a poor user experience are not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines. Specifically, we noticed your app does not take advantage of the iOS platform. It would be appropriate to add iOS specific UI and functionality rather than displaying just PDF files. Please evaluate whether you can make the necessary revisions to improve the user experience of your app."
I'm not sure why they would say it "just displays PDF" files, because we have a number of videos, audio clips, slideshows, scrolling text boxes, sharing features, overlays, etc. similar to other magazines that use DPS. Any answers?
What we are considering doing as a preemptive mesaure, is to produce a plain epub2 version of our books and post them on iBookstore in advance. Then we can say, "...well the book is already there in the iBookstore - this is the app of the interactive version in DPS". I think that's a big part of Apples attitude here - their iBookstore has been falling way behind the other platforms and they want to pressure people to produce more content and titles for their store. They may have decided to start enforcing this now because they have some proprietary fixed layout / multimedia formats and want to push us to use them. We'll post our results in the next few weeks.
repeating from last week: My APP was rejected as "too much likea book". I appealed, showing comparables & pointing at interractive features. Accepted the next day. The title is "Boston Freedom Trail Book App" and it is FREE until thursday. on the APP store. or go to http://itunes.com/apps/bostonfreedomtrailbookapp
Steve ...Back Bay Press