Adobe's decision to kill sideloading is nothing but greedy and maddening to us users.

-- Jeff

On a larger scale the solution works great.  I no longer have to worry about people coming to meetings with different versions of the folios just because they didn't check their email (we often sent the exported folios to emails).  Clients traveling with their ipads and not their computers have had an easy time just downloading the folios for preview and giving notes.  So previewing wise the updated workflow creates efficiency, consistency, and simplicity across the platform.

When the solution first was introduced i did notice some lagging in the design portion of workflow.  I traced the issue back to designers wanting to preview every little step they took on the ipad immediately after creating it (this only happened with one or two designers most were able to use the tools as intended in an efficient manner). As i explained to those few designers-- In the workflow, Ipad previewing is the step we take before sending a publication to APP creation and/or review.  If this was a print campaign - you wouldn't go running to a printer after every block of text you layout to see how it looks? i believe that same principle applies here.  The Desktop Content viewer is in place to give you as much preview as possible in a quick and easy manner.  So in some cases its a matter of how your actually using the tools.

The argument i hear the most about brining back Sideloading is people saying " i wanted to use sideloading as my distribution method" -- But of course it was that exact method of pseudo-distribution that created Red Flags for publishers expecting some level or security for their publications.  I believe the "application to connected device" previewing option sounds like it will be a great compromise to those publishers concerned about security and designers wanting a quicker and/or offline preview method.

I would like to share thre work with my students.  For them to be able to access the content from a drive or "Preview on Mobile Device

Acrobat.com is/was down from 5PM - 8PM PDT for Service Maintenance.

Adobe does an Ok job by announcing these downtimes when you login to Acrobat.com as well as: http://www.adobe.com/support/acrobatdotcom/ Ive also recommended to my own clients to follow the Acrobat and Acrobatdotcom Twitter feeds.

Yea I just want some way I can get the content to my students if I don't

have their machine available.

effing big publishers, what a load of bullsh*t, every publisher in the world tells you that for every magazine bought, it is read by 4 other people or more and they actually sell their advertising on that basis, so they can't control how many people read their print mag for free, but they want to be anal about the digital world.

How many people are really that bothered about extracting a mag and then giving it to a friend? I dont even know how to do it! and thats because I couldn't be bothered!! So OK, then some youngster finds out how to do it and posts it on a blog somewhere, would it have that big an impact? again magazines currently have many readers that don't pay for it.

Jeez, give me a break!!

Alistair

Upon having another cup of coffee, it occurs to me that this should not be an 'either/or' discussion.  Adobe has some of the brightest engineers in the world. Are you telling me that they could not have written in a security routine regarding sideloading that says in essence, "Hey! do you want to provision this Mac (or PC) to this tablet device? Great, I shall make it so."

Conversely, they could also make a setting for [insert name of huge publishing giant here] that sets a flag to a Folio to  "published" which in essence cripples all illegally sideloaded magazines?   For pete's sake, I own legally purchased copies of Creative Suites that have just stopped running because Adobe thinks I don't own it, and then have to call a number to get it re-provisioned.  I think they could do this.

The underlying issue driving this thread is that Adobe is trying to migrate from being a product company to being a licensing company -- and they just don't know how to do it. 

-- Jeff

All arguments we have heard before which i dont know why its being discussed again.  Adobe already said "ITS GONE NO MORE!".  In all seriousness the removal of sideloading fueled people to find exploits of the Content viewer and post them in this very forum.  So although you can say "well i wouldn't even know how to do that", obviously some of the most avid users have found a way.  Other solutions disabled and developed alternative preview methods around the concept of security and to remain attractive to customers.  (software like Mag+ quickly moved to a push to device method) Of course its the paying Digital Publishers that are investing in the solution that brought up the security of the sideloading method as an issue.  We ourselves have developed presentations for software and gaming companies and when showing them the solution a few months back the first thing they said was "no. its too simple for a bad employee to leak a Folio file to the community and anyone can just load it into this Viewer app? NO NO NO find us another solution".  So like Bob said to push those very customers in the mud is silly when they are the ones throwing down money to use the solution and you're still looking for the free and workaround ways.

Ok great you licence your apple development software so you don't think you should have to pay Adobe to license the Digital Publishing suite? No offense but your squawking about "i do html5 this and i can code that" why not just code your own applications? or webview applications? I mean this solution is directly aimed at Publishers looking for the ease and security.  And yes I did point out Mag+ but you'll find that other solutions are more costly and with less features.  Several people have chimed in with their experience with other solutions on this forum as well.  I mean your entitled to your feature request (side loading) and opinion, but publishers like myself (you know those guys that are paying that $9,000-14,000) have expressed our concern about the solution and its lack of security measures.  And yes you yourself may be willing to pay $100 for the solution to do things it wasn't directly intended to do, but why throw mud at those publishers that are using the solution in its directed form? In all seriousness it wasn't just Large publishers that expressed their concern, it was any business that had information to lose in a flimsy file exchange format like sideloading.  It was great for quick testing in the prerelease- but it was awful as a feature to business that have money, intellectual property, and business to lose from its exploits.

"Adobe is letting large-scale publishers lead them around by the nose.  It's unfortunate."

Yes i would have been right there in front saying "Adobe is letting those free-loaders lead them by the nose.  Its' unfortunate".  I mean seriously would you pay the $10,000 if sideloading was re-enabled? im guessing for a majority .. its no... it wouldn't have any influence on your purchasing, you still wouldn't buy it.  But sideloading being gone was a purchasing point for many publishers.   We of course expressed our concerns before purchasing.

Adobe is meeting the middle and developing a secure offline preview system.  Is that not enough?