Zeke - When you get the incompatible plug-in message, you need to do a little cleanup to get the tools to install properly. Follow solution #2 of this tech note: http://helpx.adobe.com/digital-publishing-suite/kb/error-do-have-compatible-digital.html
For those of you who installed the Folio Producer tools prematurely, we're sorry about the inconvenience. For most applications, whenever an update is available, you should update. But with DPS, that's not always the case, and people find out the hard way. The Folio Producer installer page includes a paragraph with a warning about installing tools, but it looks too much like the other blah-blah-blah text you see on download pages. We plan to update that page with a more emphatic warning.
hello bob, thanks for the advise.
nop that didn't work... i tried both solutions...
first one installs the tools but same error when starting up indesign.
second one there is no such file anywere on my system...
any other ideas? or why wont it work on a system that i didn't update
the folio builder tools yet. i tried to install the folio builder panel only
so i would be able to sync my folio with the server but after the update
of the folio builder panel i only get the message in the panel i should
update my folio builder tool?
so i figured this out... if you have indesign version 7.5.2 installed this hole thing doesn't work...
you need to be on a version 7.5.1 to actually be able to install the folio builder panel only!
and have it working with an older version of the folio builder tool...
maybe this can help someone!
have to say it's abit disapointing..
well i have about 40 stations here proveing it... no chance to run the old folio builder tool under 7.5.2
maybe it's only because we use a german version of the suit. but fact is:
i can not use the old folio builder tool in 7.5.2 and try to install the folio builder panel..
once i did this it tells me in the folio builder panel in indesign i should update the tools.
if i do that i can't view my content on the ipad.
if i use 7.5.1 version of indesign it runs smooth... well not smooth if i had to downgrade... then
you need to delet some of those cash files and stuff that neighter the uninstaller nor the
cleaner patch can take care off...
Any idea when there will be an updated iPad app for the Adobe Content Viewer?
I bought the "new" iPad and I spent all Spring Break preparing lectures for my advanced InDesign class in both eBooks and Digital Publishing. My intent is to have all of them prepare an ebook and folio as a class project. Yes, they can certainly view the folio at their computer, but the real magic is missing when they can't upload it to their iPads. I did a survey and half of the class have their own iPads.
Any workaround that you could suggest?
I'm going to feel like a fool in front of my class next week. (I teach Adobe InDesign at a college) We've just done interactive PDFs, and I wanted that "wow" factor when we compared eBooks to folios. It's embarrassing to tell the public that I'm waiting on Apple and Adobe to do updates.
Cyndi Reese, ACE
This question has been asked over and over and the answer doesn’t change.
Apple will approve it when Apple decides to approve it.
Do not update the tools until the new viewer has been approved or…if you have a Pro/Enterprise account, make your own viewer. I did it myself the other day and it takes about 5 minutes.
Absent that, roll the tools back to version 18 and everything will be fine.
Many thanks for the prompt replies-- I definitely sense the frustration that Adobe must have waiting for Apple approval!
May I make a suggestion? As a trainer in the trenches, I assumed (a dangerous word, I know) that I should update the newest versions of the Folio Producer Tools and Folio Builder because that was the information that I got in the tutorials and material I was studying. Even after reading the Folio Producer Tools and Viewer App version compatibility table in the "Please update your app" help file, it doesn't speak well as to what version to go down to. [Many thanks for your email reply with the correct version of 1.8] With all of the different mobile devices about, I appreciate what Adobe is going through keeping current! But perhaps there could be a posted status table website somewhere that maps the Producer Tools version and the major mobile devices?
I am delighted at how easy it was to create a folio. Coming from a solid foundation in InDesign, digital publishing is the best thing since sliced bread!
I'm certain this is harder than it sounds given DPS architecture, but what if you could install the latest Adobe DPS tools and then choose the viewer version you want when creating the folio? Sort of like you can create a PDF using the latest version of Acrobat but also specify that the PDF conform to ealier PDF specs. Sure, you might be in a situation where you've designed a feature that won't work in the older format, but that's where the software should hold your hand a bit with a compatibility alert of some kind. The upshot of this is that it allows you to stay current with the software and not have to uninstall and reinstall versions to account for different viewers.
I see this kind of feature as part of a larger pattern of DPS tools needing to adapt to users rather than the other way around. I know this will take time as DPS is a relatively new tool, but as it stands now there are just so many hoops to jump through to create materials in this format (and I'm sure Apple is responsible for many of those hoops, too).
Some more dreaming here:
Author an entire multi-article folio in a single INDD file. Section breaks can indicate the start of new articles.
Intelligent folio updates so only changes get pushed.
'Update all' folios instead of doing it manually.
An indicator on a folio panel that changes have been made to a source document and need to be updated to the server.
Vector-based MSOs with text/images that look just as sharp as non-interactive content.
Auto-renditions -- at least for proportional layouts. The server just makes them for you -- scaling up or down as needed based on what you've provided.
Okay -- back to reality now...
Hope that i didn't miss the answere of my question. I tryed to read the full discussion but it's to much of
"You are wrong." "No, you!" "It's Apple's fault" "......."
I understand that if we want to test the app we have to wait until apple approved the new content viewer.
My question is: what do i have to do for our customers?
We build several Multi Folio App with subscription for newsstand and we only want to publish new issues.
Do we now need to build a hole new viewer every time you (Adobe) update the Folio Builder? That means
• much more work for all of us
• a much longer period to be approved by apple
• and consequently more troble with our customers
You kiddin' me, right? Does anyone think about this before? That means
we have to notice every version for every folio we build with folio builder to
be sure not to have a newer version!? For one or two apps it's ok, but not
for more and not with couple of issue's! Our customers will be thankful!
For real: that is not feasible!!! Good work!
I think you misunderstood. The reason there are two separate installers is so that you can update your Folio Builder panel without having to update your viewer version. If you build a custom app with v18 tools and get a message to update the panel, just update the panel -- and only the panel. You're still using v18 tools with the updated panel. But if you update the tools, you update your viewer version, and then you'll need to submit a new custom viewer to Apple.
I understand the reasoning behind the muli-part install - and I think we are all getting better at understanding and working through new releases - but the simple fact that Johannes has created a web page - http://caniupdateadobedps.com - to provide guidance to the upgrade process is a clue that it is challenging for even sophisticated users.
If you have multiple Apps and a decent back history of folios - it is quite challenging to maintain current with toolsets and viewers - then throw in the mix Apple's control over versioning, etc. etc..
With six to eight week sprints, the grumbling will never truly subside.
So I want to congratulate jmooring2 for reminding us of the ability to backsave to an earlier standard within normal PDF workflow. It is a fine idea and should be implemented straight away.
Obviously, I understand the drive to Release 20 and all the cool stuff there...but the time has come where new features need to take a back seat to compatibility and production workflow.
The toolset may still be a little "beta" but we are all for the most part in production.
We need stability, and advance planning. We need train tracks, not the pitch of the open sea.
I've rolled back all the tools and rebuilt my app in v18 - no difference, still saying I should update my app. I rebuild it in V19 and it works, but I did that last week and my app was rejected by Apple because of bugs with the Viewer - which is obvioulsy an Adobe/DPS problem, because I went through the exact same process I have to build other approved apps.
So, there's no point in resubimtting the app to Apple with V19 because I will only be waiting a week/10 days for a rejection, and building it in v18 doesn't even work in the developer version so that will be rejected too. No idea what to do next. Uninstall every last trace of DPS off my system and start again????
My DPS versions:
Folio Builder - 12.1.3 (latest)
Folio Producer - 220.127.116.11 (old)
Viewer Builder - 1.9.0 (latest - though I can select v18 when I build a viewer)
Perhaps Adobe could change to a method where you have to use your Adobe ID to confirm that you have read and understand their (soon to be improved) disclaimer about the dangers of installing the latest tools before Apple approves the newest Adobe Content Viewer. This way the average joe/newbie can't install the new tools without being hit over the head with how things work. The experienced users will be able to access the latest tools as soon as they're available and the new folks won't get frustrated because they unknowingly installed the tools too soon for their needs.
In all this heated discussion I'd like to just say (as a Single Edition DPS purchaser) - I get it - and THANK YOU for giving me access to updated tools as soon as they're available for Professional or Enterprise customers. I truely appreciate it. :-)
Personally I haven't found myself stuck in a jam because I updated my tools in the middle of an important client roll out. (really? people do that??) I do, however, find myself anxious for Apple's approval because I want to see my baby fly on my new iPad!! (My baby being a Retina sized folio test with full screen image sequences). I have tested it on the desktop viewer (well, tested the top left corner of it - it's bigger than my desktop ;-P ) - but can't tell how sweet it will look at all.
However, I was thinking - would I not be able to create a development version of my app, which should work? (Presuming I bought a license to publish beforehand). I am way off being ready to publish; would creating a viewer right now affect me when I want to do so again for publication?
The case for v19 is mostly moot, since surely(?) Apple is about to approve and the new Adobe viewer will be released - but for future generations - Is there any way we could create a "deveopment viewer" for Single Edition? (Dev only..?) In addition to being able to create a dev build, sideloading into the dev build would be a god-send, even though our small company can't offord a $500 per month subscription. I know you have to protect the subscription value, but this small bit would help so much.. <gets on knees for extra sympathy..> P-p-p-lleeaaasseee....?
If you read this thread and the countless others you’ll see the same answer over and over again. Anyone working with Apple is at Apple’s whim and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
And it doesn’t matter how long it took last time so that shouldn’t even enter into the equation.
If you need to work with ACV now you’ll need to roll back to version 18.
We all wish Apple was more forthcoming especially with something that’s been updated so many times already. Whether you find that friendly or not, is irrelevant. Those are the facts.
Is it possible to add something (insult to injury?) that hasn't been said before in this thread ? Yes.
Users think of the Apple App Store as an area where stuff can be freely tried and tested. But it's not - it's a STORE, not a workshop. And Apple likes to keep their shop clean and all, and have only decent apps on the shelves. (Yes, there have been and still are apps that don't work or are quite useless, but these are rare and at least Apple tries to draw some line.) And although they do take a long time to approve an app, it's their right. Whether we like it or not.
To test and publish our puppy's, we (both free-loaders and paid Adobe customers) need some fail-safe method to put stuff on our and everyone's iPad. Now, Adobe won't les us, because they want to rule the folio-kingdom. They hate to see us output folio's to iPads (as if they were PDFs or MP3s), without their kind but eventually paid intervention. That's their good right too. Whether we like it or not.
So we're sitting here, happily stuck between two big companies, who both don't move an inch towards an easier approval or easier technical solution. In fact, Adobe has been moving further away from technical ease-of-use (for distributing folio's) since the first incarnations of the Folio Builder, because they are afraid they might give something away too quickly that could turn out commercially very profitable later on.
Technically, it's not such a big deal to get something like an interactive publication from InDesign onto your iPad. Take a look at other tools, like Twixl, Mag+, and a few others, who use the official iOS Simulator or a direct connection, to test/distribute something on your iPad. But Adobe wants to keep their approach a tightly closed circuit, and stay platform agnostic (or at least cross-platform between iOS and Android) with their tools and trades.
Insult to injury maybe, but that's the State of our Art.
It's a bit like The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.
Valuable publications should not spread too easily !
You might get trapped or killed...
Peter, I'm glad someone finally said that. I was going to but I have enough back and forth threads on here. Some many people think that the only thing Apple has better to do is finalize this one App. Apple gets thousands of Apps every day to be approved and just because Adobe has submitted this App several times before does not give it a rubber stamp to be approved. Apple taking it's time is the reason we don't have thousands of Spyware and Trojans Apps on IOS devices. I'm not saying Apple is perfect but I will take Apple over Android any day. The simple fact for me is that Adobe should have planned better and come up with better solutions to this such as the PDF model people have suggested.
I know we could upgrade to the Pro service but we have no need for that at all. We are a private company and what we do does not need to be in the App store, even hidden. We use DPS for internal interactive selling tools and DPS has been good for that, not great but good. In my opinion Adobe has been so short minded in how people can use this software. Adobe is pigeonholing us in a way, telling us how we are suppose to use the software. When did this start? I thougt Adobe software was all about creativity, exploration and now I feel like Adobe is stifling that to some degree.
Peter and Ryan,
I would guess that Adobe is just as frustrated as we are with the situation. Why Apple chooses to run their system and make their products with as much subjectivity as they do makes all of us a bit crazy from time to time. Apple is imperfect just as Adobe is. They both make tools, if the tools aren't reliable or capable enough to use for the work you do then you must either compromise your ideal workflow to match the tool's capabilities or find another tool.
Look at what happened to Apple with their "upgrade" to Final Cut last year, they basically rewrote their video editing software from scratch and released an early version with limited capabilities compared to its predecessor. The professional editing community did not take kindly to the subtraction of many of the features and workflow they were used to and were very vocal about it. The new version of the tool was unacceptable to many, but the editors could still use the older tool (that they'd been successfully using for years) to do their work. Apple released an imperfect tool that is still in the process of adding back many of the features professional video editors want. The idea of a "shrinkwrapped" and bulletproof software is increasingly a thing of the past. This is the new reality for software releases and you can choose to be upset about it or you can accept it and adapt. I want stability in a product before I use it and/or recommend that a client pays X amount of dollars per year to use it for distribution. Over the last year Adobe has worked out many of the kinks in the DPS system but it's still frustrating from time to time. As we've had to explain to our customers, if you want to use "cutting edge" technology then you'll have to accept some hiccups and disappointments along the way.
The old software cycle at Adobe was every 2 years or so new features would be added in a major release. The only real updates were bug fixes not new or improved features. Now we are getting beta releases (Photoshop 6), lab versions of products that are in development (Edge), and frequent feature updates and additions (DPS). If you don't like the way that things currently work then don't use the most current tools. Pretend that it's the old way and only update your software once every two years, or more realistically you can wait to install the v19 tools until they've been out for a while and are part of a stable solution that doesn't force you to make excuses to your customers.
Just as Apple charges 30% to developers who want to sell in their app store, Adobe has decided upon the platform fee and pay per download model. Is it fair that Apple takes 30% just to have access to the marketplace and app ecosystem they've spent time and money to create? Is it generous of them to allow free apps to live in their ecosystem and be downloaded without any ongoing cost to the developer?
It seems that you are complaining that Adobe is letting you freely use a system/tool they have created and are continually updating and trying to improve. You were invited to attend a party for free that others have paid thousands of dollars to attend. Seems like a good deal but wait a minute, the music's a bit too loud, the bathrooms use air blowers instead of paper towels, they're making you pay for your own drinks, and you aren't getting the party favors that surely everyone at a party like this should receive! That's not right, how dare they…
Don't get me wrong, I've been burned by the way things work a few times in the past year while using Adobe's DPS system. I've learned from that experience and am trying to make the best use of the system that Adobe currently has. My usage of their imperfect product includes waiting before installing new tools.
Peter, just as you accept that it's Apple's right to take a long time in approving apps you need to accept that Adobe has the right to run their system/tool the way they want to…even to the point of being able to charge money for the use of their system. Do I wish folios were as cheap and easy to distribute as PDFs and MP3s? Sure. I also wish I didn't have to pay taxes and that I could eat lunch at a restaurant on the moon, but that's not the way things currently work so I must accept it and adapt accordingly. As far as a fail-safe method to put stuff on everyone's iPad, I don't think it exists. "The cloud" and digital distribution have positives and negatives just like everything else in life, "fail-safe" isn't one of the positives. I find the cloud method much easier than sideloading when it comes to sharing folios with customers so I'm not sure what you mean by Adobe moving further away from technical ease-of-use for distributing folios.
Ryan, it is true that Apple's "closed garden" approach keeps out lots of chaff but it also slows down the wheat. That's a compromise developers have to accept if they want to release to iOS. Adobe developed a system whose initial user was meant to be major print publishers. Publishers who don't want their magazines to be easily shared the way that PDFs and MP3s can be. Just because we can think of better ways the system could meet our needs doesn't change the reality of the way things currently are in the Adobe DPS system. It's one of those compromises you have to accept when you choose to use Adobe's system. If it doesn't meet your needs then find another solution/tool that does. The DPS system will continue to improve and meet the needs of a larger market of developers as time goes on just as other companies will improve their tools as well. I don't go into Home Depot and tell them what their tools should do, I go in and tell the people working there what I'm trying to do and they recommend the tools they have that can help me get as close to accomplishing what I want as possible. Why are software tools any different? I choose the best tools available to do the work that needs to be done. When I come across a limitation of my tools I don't put on sackcloth and ashes, I improvise and make the best product I can with the tools available. I can also choose to write a letter to the tool manufacturers giving them my suggestions on how to improve their products, but I don't stand up on a palette of wrenches at Home Depot and yell out my complaints.
Again, it seems like most of the complaints in this thread are from people who are frustrated that they have free access to a system that major publishers like National Geographic and Conde Nast use to create and distribute to hundreds of thousands of people. I'm still amazed at the level of access and distribution anyone can have just by signing up for a free Adobe ID. Would it be better if Adobe locked down the system and only gave access to those who could spend $50K or more? Why can't you be glad that you're being given access so you can learn and use a system that allows you to create interactive digital publications for distribution to multiple operating systems and devices without having to write native code? What is it that you've done that in your mind means Adobe owes you something? You are not the victim of Adobe or Apple and how they've chosen to run their businesses. You're just like everyone else here, you've chosen to use an imperfect tool and are trying to make the most of it. If the tool is too flawed for your needs then move on to a different one.
Andrew, to your last long winded pretty much pointless statement that still did not address any of the real complaints. Why does it matter if it's free or paid, this is about offering a complete package ready to all users not the top 1% which by the way are not the driving force of Adobes profits. In fact it's the rest of us little guys which really drive Adobes profit margins. Why does anything need to be locked down, what a closed minded statement. As long as Adobe does not allow us to sideload or save to a file format we are lock into Adobes idea of the "Cloud" which is stifling creativeity and the use of the software as we see fit and pretty much sets us up to spend money on the premium services. I want to use DPS how I want to. Like I said before when did Adobe stare dictating how to use the software.
The simple fact is that DPS is still a Beta and Adobe did not plan it's use and implementation very well, not nearly as well as Quark did with there iPad solution anyway. All we want is software to publish to a tablet with the ability to do it how they want and Adobe has never until now told us how we are suppose to do that. Do I have to use some special Adobe service to publish a web site using Dreamweaver, no. So why do I have to do it now with DPS.
Your pointless points are too numerous to even try to point out. Points that you creatively managed to put in between the real points but still not address.
With that said I will leave you with one other counter point though. I'm not telling Adobe what there tools should do, I am asking Adobe to stop telling me what to do with there tools. If I want to use the hammer backwards it's my right and if Adobe what's to change that right so be it but all they are doing is holding creativity back by doing so.
I use the DPS to do things Adobe or other uses have not even though of. I have bent the software's capabilities to suite my needs just fine and if Adobe what's to nickel and dime us to use said software than I guess so be it.
Hi Andrew, first: thanks for your very elaborate answer. I read it through and through, and agree with you that business-wise, Adobe is indeed doing its free-loading users a great favor. And I guess many of them might be using it in a less troublesome way.
With regards to some bugs, problems, and choices, I ask myself: how many developers or even marketeers does it take, to change this or to take care of that ? How willfully 'committed' is Adobe to the wishes of a few big corporations, and how much effort and attention would they like to spend on building a more massively, widely used tool 'for the masses' ?
But there's another aspect to Adobe's business: they whole-heartedly ASK us for feedback. They DO invite us to stand up on a palette of wrenches at Home Depot and yell out my complaints. That's what this forum is for, and that's what they're gonna get, from me, from Ryan, and many others, who are a bit more vocative about what's wrong and funny and downright stupid about Adobe's premature but precious tools. These discussions, posts, and reactions are sollicited for, they're part of the eco-system Adobe likes to feed and learn from, even on a free-lunch basis ! Many of the more fanatic ones around here spend much time (often also for free) to tell Adobe what they think of their products and policies. It's what Adobe asks for and how they like to interact with early adopters and free-loaders, and it's BTW a totally (180 degrees) different approach, compared to Apple's.
I don't dictate Adobe what to do. They don't dictate me what to use.
I simply vent - just as crazy - my ideas and opinions about what's happening.
So we're all together in this, trying to make good products, and some money.
It takes a lot for me to post to a forum -- I usually try to lurk about and ask the occasional question. I do take offense with comments about "free-loading" users. Here's my two cents worth.
Do any of you remember using InDesign version 1? It would not output to anything but a PostScript printer. If you wanted to print at your composite (inkjet) printer on your desktop, you had to create a PDF and then print from Acrobat/Reader. Adobe quickly released InDesign 1.5 within months to fix this problem. My personal take was that Adobe originally thought that only high-end "professionals" would use InDesign.
I'm a fulltime instructor in InDesign at a community college, Adobe Certified Expert, Adobe Education Leader and Adobe User Group Manager. I'm currently teaching a unit on DPS to my advanced students and it's engaging curriculum, especially after just completing a unit on ePub. Some of my students will transfer to design schools, others will seek employment or advance their current job skills, and some use InDesign for personal enrichment. I hope they will take this cutting edge technology and run with it, no matter what type of user they are. With the introduction of the Single Edition subscription, I feel that Adobe has again listened to how a product can be used. Yes, there are some hurdles to be overcome and bugs to work out of the system. I took Bob Bringhurt's suggestion of reinstalling the plug-ins and everything works great. Many thanks to Bob for the quick response, and I feel his pain as he repeats over and over again the same information for the fix.
Not one person has flinched with the $395 Single Edition fee in my various presentations. I have not yet had the opportunity of working with larger companies and the other types of subscriptions. Being able share a folio might be as important in the future as being able to share a PDF -- which would then have more people buying Adobe software. And being able to take a folio to the next level and sell it for profit is just as important. But honestly, why would you call someone who just shelled out $1800 for the Creative Suite a freeloader?
Well Adobe, here is a scenario that will allow you to understand how the "free loader" contingency of the Digital Publishing Suite got not only you to lose a valuable account - but let a far inferior competitor make a boat load of money. I work for a very large pharmaceutical company and we were weighing our options for taking our sales aids to iPads. The very week of the forced upgrade I was working on my presentation. In the middle of the process I was asked to upgrade. In doing so, I got the dreaded "must upgrade your app" error message.
For me it was forced - since I was only presented with the option to upgrade. I couldn't sign in to the Folio Builder without doing so. Or it wasn't clearly shown another way to cancel out of the upgrade anyways. For me this was a devastating blow to the overall stability of the product. Our near-sighted IT Department felt this process might cause confusion for the end-user. No matter how many times I tried to explain the situation, our IT department never grasped the situation correctly. And in the end we used a far inferior solution. In addition you will also be losing the tracking side of our companies/clients sites (Catalyst). Not because of this, but just since it will all no longer be integrated. One of my main selling points to the powers that be for DPS.
I can't truly estimate the amount of money lost here. But it is quite large. So the lesson to be learned, never underestimate who you may screw by not properly engineering your software solution-no matter what level. Even the so called free loaders. I was a champion for your product but left out in the dark by bad business practices. The only one to blame is Adobe. The simple solution on every level of the DPS would be to select the version of the viewer you want to use at export. It is an easy software fix. And given the situation of privacy and Apple cracking down-be smart and think of every possible hiccup along the way. As some people may be inclined to believe, Apple is not to blame. Given the often changing policies of new technologies, good companies forsee possible problems and plan for them. Properly deploying software so it works is pretty simple. And Adobe has been in the software business long enough to understand this.
I will continue free loading, as it's called here, for my personal stuff. But just remember at the grassroots level is where the foundation starts. Keep everyone happy and you will keep your products growing. Instead of waiting for Apple to approve your app. Update your existing software to be compatible with all levels.