Jump to content
Gabe Logan

How can I open Indesign (indd and idml) Files in Publisher?

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, tmsn said:

InDesign integration is absolutely essential, otherwise Affinity might as well pack up and go home. InDesign is used by such a huge proportion of the market that it's inevitable that Publisher users are going to have to be able to read and write InDesign files to be able to work effectively in the wider design ecosystem. Integrate with InDesign and users will start to migrate from Adobe's very expensive subscription model. Fail to and no one will buy it 'cause they'll be isolated from the rest of the design community.

TMSN: Have you tried opening a PDF made with InDesign, with APublisher yet? I have about 3000 indd files and CS4. Most people  who didn’t upgrade to CC can simply make a PDF with old CS and fiddle a bit, done.  Which has/had to be done when InDesign opened old quark files.  That said I know some people have files that have tables or some other complicated files that PDFs don’t work well with. Or many links.  Links can be easy to fix if all your images are in one file though.  In my mind I think a huge majority of designers here (like me) will find the PDF translation good enough. If your files are CS. If you are CC  translating idml files will also need a current CC subscription to translate.  The only way to have CC users quit CC and use APublisher is for them to translate 1000’s of files to idml or PDF before cancelling their subscription. OR for publisher to actually open INDD files.  At least that’s the way I see it.  So I think it’s a bit of a waist of time for Affinity to work on opening IDML. Work on opening INDD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BLKay said:

...OR for publisher to actually open INDD files.  At least that’s the way I see it.  So I think it’s a bit of a waist of time for Affinity to work on opening IDML. Work on opening INDD. 

As mentioned before, Adobe changes the file spec each and every revision. Going after INDD support would be an onerous task. At some point, once there is a new revision, APub wouldn't be able to open them, Serif would quickly ferret out what changed (and there is no real spec for INDD files), and then update APub. Else there would be a long lag time between Adobe's release of a new CC version and APub's ability to open them.

There are scripts that can package CC files, including creating the IDML, and these scripts can act on hole file structures / file folders. Else rent for a month once in a while and only convert those files that are needed. It's not a big deal.

Quote

InDesign integration is absolutely essential, otherwise Affinity might as well pack up and go home. InDesign is used by such a huge proportion of the market that it's inevitable that Publisher users are going to have to be able to read and write InDesign files to be able to work effectively in the wider design ecosystem.

If one needs to collaborate with ID users, one really has to use ID, and the same version at that. There is no real way around the issue.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeW said:

As mentioned before, Adobe changes the file spec each and every revision. Going after INDD support would be an onerous task. At some point, once there is a new revision, APub wouldn't be able to open them, Serif would quickly ferret out what changed (and there is no real spec for INDD files), and then update APub. Else there would be a long lag time between Adobe's release of a new CC version and APub's ability to open them.

There are scripts that can package CC files, including creating the IDML, and these scripts can act on hole file structures / file folders. Else rent for a month once in a while and only convert those files that are needed. It's not a big deal.

If one needs to collaborate with ID users, one really has to use ID, and the same version at that. There is no real way around the issue.

Which is one reason, besides the price, I have not upgraded to InDesign CC. And it's why I'm looking to Publisher going forward. In the meantime, I still use InDesign CS6. Unfortunately it's not a 64 bit app on the Mac. But I won't have to worry about that for awhile; I'm still using macOS 10.12.6 Sierra. For that matter, even 10.14 Mojave still supports 32 bit apps, however grudgingly. The only Adobe app I still need is Lightroom because I have so many legacy files which Affinity Photo can't handle. But it's not expensive, unlike InDesign.

So, for me the question will be, will Publisher be able to handle, one way or another, InDesign CS6 files which, after all, are stable not not subject to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Whitedog said:

...So, for me the question will be, will Publisher be able to handle, one way or another, InDesign CS6 files which, after all, are stable not not subject to change?

Take what I am writing with a grain of salt—I'm not a Serif employee. I suspect Serif will provide IDML only.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeW said:

Take what I am writing with a grain of salt—I'm not a Serif employee. I suspect Serif will provide IDML only.

Well...we still need to know with some degree of assurance what Serif's plans are for InDesign compatibility. IDML would be better than nothing. But will it happen? If not, Affinity Publisher will be far less feasible an upgrade path than it might be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a side note to using CS5-6 ID and PS with macOS changes, it had held us back from upgrading to High Sierra. However, after some work and research, I upgraded my Parallels and added a Sierra Guest VM where my CS5 apps run just fine. After upgrading to High Sierra on the real HD, I find that my CS 5 apps work there fine as well, so still very usable. However, I'm going to keep my virtual Sierra drive for a couple other apps that died with the High Sierra upgrade. They all are running just fine in the virtual drive and I have copy/paste, file sharing between the real HD (High Sierra) and the VM, so it's providing a great workaround to keep my legacy apps working.

On getting ID files into APub, as I've said in previous posts to this thread, it is critical to be able to do this. Our company has massive client files in ID and PS that have to be able to be used as the basis for revisions, etc. While I have used the Open PDF in APub, as stated by many, that method has a lot of limitations that make it only appropriate for small, simple file conversions. Anything complex, it simply won't import correctly. That means a huge cost to the client to rebuild the entire document in APub, something most clients simply won't pay. If APub is going to become part of the workflow, we really need to be able to use our legacy client files. 

When we switched to APhoto from PS, we had reasonable success in importing most (but not all) PS files, so the transition has been good for the most part (still missing some critical comparable features). But with APub, if we are to actually switch to it, we have to be able to get a majority of our client files into APub. Over the many, many years of doing this (going back to Aldus PM V1), we have never had the need to use IDML, so have no knowledge as to whether that will be a reasonable way to convert our thousands of ID client files. I hope it will work given that Serif has stated that they are working towards adding that. But that is an area where we have no experience. We have numerous complex corporate CS5 ID files that require conversion/import if we are to use APub in our workflow. That's why we're following this thread to see if this is going to turn out well. Love APub so far, but do need the ability to bring in old client files!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Affinity gives publisher the ability to open ID files then Adobe will alter that file format every couple of weeks forcing Affinity to spend money (and lose customers and get bad press, etcetera) until Affinity is broke trying to find the changes. 

Adobe will not sit by idly and let someone gut their business.

Affinity Will Not  Open ID Files.

Ever.

It isn't worth losing the company over.

Adobe has more money, they will win.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.4

Affinity Designer 1.6.1 | Affinity Photo 1.6.7 | Affinity Publisher beta 1.7.0.293 | Affinity Photo beta 1.7.0.120 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.7.0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nwhit said:

Over the many, many years of doing this (going back to Aldus PM V1), we have never had the need to use IDML, so have no knowledge as to whether that will be a reasonable way to convert our thousands of ID client files.

InDesign Markup Language is your best backup plan. You really should be keeping them, not because Affinity Publisher will be able to read them but because they are essentially text files anyone can read. If you don't go with Affinity Publisher you can go with someone else, or return to Adobe in twelve years and it will be "Hey, their new great thing reads Mark up Language files." but it won't read the ancient ID files.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.4

Affinity Designer 1.6.1 | Affinity Photo 1.6.7 | Affinity Publisher beta 1.7.0.293 | Affinity Photo beta 1.7.0.120 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.7.0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

If Affinity gives publisher the ability to open ID files then Adobe will alter that file format every couple of weeks forcing Affinity to spend money (and lose customers and get bad press, etcetera) until Affinity is broke trying to find the changes. 

Adobe will not sit by idly and let someone gut their business.

Affinity Will Not  Open ID Files.

Ever.

It isn't worth losing the company over.

Adobe has more money, they will win.

You're probably right, thing is Adobe did that very thing to Quark. I guess Quark didn't have the money or the guts.  A pretty two faced way to run a business and one of the reasons I want out.  Not that I'm the expert on knowing the details. 

That said. Won't Adobe have to spend a lot of money to change the software as much as Affinity will to change theirs?  Just a useless point I know - because Affinity will not ever read INDD files it will just be IMDL files. That said number two - Reading a PDF in my world works great! I want to know if everyone here has tried it yet? That is - making a PDF in InDesign and opening that PDF with APublisher. I was AMAZED at how good (enough) that was for me. Text boxes not bad in most cases. I know some have a big problem with it. Re - Linking links. Yup, but easy for some. Just an annoyance more than a huge pain - for me that is.  It's better than starting over from nothing - for me. 

The thing is, is it is what it is.  You can bet Adobe won't have to make software to open APublisher.  It's a bit like expecting Ford to make their cars fit GM engines.  They are not the same thing.  I'm not saying I don't wish for this feature but I am saying it might be unreasonable to assume that Affinity will die because they can't fit Dodge Transmissions into ... 

Kidding aside, some will some won't. This won't kill Adobe. They will only shift and perhaps offer InDesign Elements or finally $10 a month like Photoshop ?  If they start seeing their user base deteriorate.  

So far I like APublisher. Any other software that has tried doesn't come close to InDesign which even in my opinion left Quark in the dust.  APublisher I can see will already surpass Quark by quite a bit in my opinion. But quiet a stretch to catch InDesign.  Yet there are new and better ideas out there that I hope Affinity have up their sleeve. Things that sleepy Adobe didn't even dream of.  I don't see Adobe becoming the next Quark though.  Ya never know.  There is a lot of room to be better than InDesign for most users, I think.  Preset warping of text is one. Like Typestyler. Which can just be another app that works with Publisher. Illustrator is HORRIBLE at this.  Adobe bought Aldus and got an app called TypeTwister. Look it up.  Yes, it was a kids app. KIDS! And of course really really OS 9 mac old looking.  But had amazing controls and allowed you to pre-set warps etc.  So Adobe had this, yet dumped it.  Some here have said that I dream about how good software was back then.  That if I tried it again it would fall short. I can see some truth in that.  But if you're laying out ads and want speed there are so SO many things that can be shortcut in a working environment. Remember these guys are software engineers not layout artists.  And yet truly if you look at my wish list even I can't get it in my head how I'd want some things to work. It truly takes a smarter person than I to figure out some magic. 

An example I saw lately that I did not know about was what Flickr could do in what they called magic mode.  Amazingly when you push this button it categorizes photos into, cars, cats, dogs, people. lake, architecture and the list goes on.  WOW. I thought that would be impossible on a wish list and I guess it was 15 or more years ago.  It's not a perfect example of what I'm talking about for Affinity but I have to say that when I see software that does something I didn't think i needed, it amazes me.  iPhone for example. For some of the younger people here you'll never get to experience the 'wow' factor of watching that keynote when we had nothing but crap phones before that.  I really really hope Affinity can pull some rabbits out of the hat and kick Adobes but. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BLKay said:

Won't Adobe have to spend a lot of money to change the software as much as Affinity will to change theirs?  

Adobe is in the position of being able to decide when to make a change, it can be a simple thing. Affinity will have to drop their work on new features to figure out just what the hell this thing is and how to implement it, and then Adobe does it again and again. Two months gone and Affinity has been standing still plus getting lots of flack from customers because the new ID file format can't be opened in time for people to work on a client's job, they will go back to Adobe who have no new features just like Affinity but Affinity has spent money and lost customers. 

Read Sun Tzu. Read Machiavelli.


MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid 2012) Mac OS 10.12.6 || Mac Pro (Late 2013) Mac OS 10.14.4

Affinity Designer 1.6.1 | Affinity Photo 1.6.7 | Affinity Publisher beta 1.7.0.293 | Affinity Photo beta 1.7.0.120 | Affinity Designer Beta 1.7.0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

Adobe is in the position of being able to decide when to make a change, it can be a simple thing. Affinity will have to drop their work on new features to figure out just what the hell this thing is and how to implement it, and then Adobe does it again and again. Two months gone and Affinity has been standing still plus getting lots of flack from customers because the new ID file format can't be opened in time for people to work on a client's job, they will go back to Adobe who have no new features just like Affinity but Affinity has spent money and lost customers. 

Read Sun Tzu. Read Machiavelli.

You don't need Sun Tzu or Machiavelli to work out Adobe's business strategy on this point. For one thing, Publisher won't represent any kind of a threat to Adobe for some time to come—if it ever does. If they change the INDD file format it will probably be for reasons having nothing to do with Affinity Publisher, which is not yet out of beta. Adobe already provides a more or less universal version for InDesign files with the IMDL format, which permits collaboration between people using differing versions of InDesign, and some non-Adobe applications as well.

If Publisher can handle IMDL files they won't have to bother with INDD, supposing it's as tricky as some folks here suggest.

On another topic, some have put in a claim for Quark XPress compatibility. Supposing Serif considers that important, if you wan't some insight into why Quark is so much less important than it once was, check out this detailed article in ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/quarkxpress-the-demise-of-a-design-desk-darling/. It turns out there was a lot I didn't know on the subject, in particular how InDesign spanked Quark on important feature development. For instance, in the subtle case of hanging type and not so subtle support for OpenType. And much else besides. Now, of course, Adobe has become complacent and, some feel, negligent of customer concerns. Though, in my opinion, Adobe has a long way to go to be as arrogant as Quark once was. And they are hardly resting on their laurels; consider Lightroom on the iPhone and Photoshop on the iPad. Of course the problem with Quark XPress is that it is still prohibitively expensive. If you add in the cost of the occasional upgrade for Quark, the price of InDesign CC is not nearly so daunting.

Of course we may only guess that Affinity Publisher will be priced the same as Affinity Photo and Designer. If it is, and if it is relatively feature complete when it comes out of beta, then it will have great appeal for those, like me, looking to break with, or avoid Adobe—and Quark. As for those with established InDesign workflows, the issue is more problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BLKay said:

You're probably right, thing is Adobe did that very thing to Quark. I guess Quark didn't have the money or the guts.  A pretty two faced way to run a business and one of the reasons I want out.  Not that I'm the expert on knowing the details. 

That said. Won't Adobe have to spend a lot of money to change the software as much as Affinity will to change theirs?  Just a useless point I know - because Affinity will not ever read INDD files it will just be IMDL files. That said number two - Reading a PDF in my world works great! I want to know if everyone here has tried it yet? That is - making a PDF in InDesign and opening that PDF with APublisher. I was AMAZED at how good (enough) that was for me. Text boxes not bad in most cases. I know some have a big problem with it. Re - Linking links. Yup, but easy for some. Just an annoyance more than a huge pain - for me that is.  It's better than starting over from nothing - for me. 

The thing is, is it is what it is.  You can bet Adobe won't have to make software to open APublisher.  It's a bit like expecting Ford to make their cars fit GM engines.  They are not the same thing.  I'm not saying I don't wish for this feature but I am saying it might be unreasonable to assume that Affinity will die because they can't fit Dodge Transmissions into ... 

Kidding aside, some will some won't. This won't kill Adobe. They will only shift and perhaps offer InDesign Elements or finally $10 a month like Photoshop ?  If they start seeing their user base deteriorate.  

So far I like APublisher. Any other software that has tried doesn't come close to InDesign which even in my opinion left Quark in the dust.  APublisher I can see will already surpass Quark by quite a bit in my opinion. But quiet a stretch to catch InDesign.  Yet there are new and better ideas out there that I hope Affinity have up their sleeve. Things that sleepy Adobe didn't even dream of.  I don't see Adobe becoming the next Quark though.  Ya never know.  There is a lot of room to be better than InDesign for most users, I think.  Preset warping of text is one. Like Typestyler. Which can just be another app that works with Publisher. Illustrator is HORRIBLE at this.  Adobe bought Aldus and got an app called TypeTwister. Look it up.  Yes, it was a kids app. KIDS! And of course really really OS 9 mac old looking.  But had amazing controls and allowed you to pre-set warps etc.  So Adobe had this, yet dumped it.  Some here have said that I dream about how good software was back then.  That if I tried it again it would fall short. I can see some truth in that.  But if you're laying out ads and want speed there are so SO many things that can be shortcut in a working environment. Remember these guys are software engineers not layout artists.  And yet truly if you look at my wish list even I can't get it in my head how I'd want some things to work. It truly takes a smarter person than I to figure out some magic. 

An example I saw lately that I did not know about was what Flickr could do in what they called magic mode.  Amazingly when you push this button it categorizes photos into, cars, cats, dogs, people. lake, architecture and the list goes on.  WOW. I thought that would be impossible on a wish list and I guess it was 15 or more years ago.  It's not a perfect example of what I'm talking about for Affinity but I have to say that when I see software that does something I didn't think i needed, it amazes me.  iPhone for example. For some of the younger people here you'll never get to experience the 'wow' factor of watching that keynote when we had nothing but crap phones before that.  I really really hope Affinity can pull some rabbits out of the hat and kick Adobes but. 

 

Adobe didn't kill Quark. Quark killed Quark. They made some exceedingly stupid decisions and let InDesign steal a march on them with appealing and useful features. Among other things InDesign was first with OS X support on the Mac. It wasn't until Quark was reorganized that they finally woke up to their peril. But by then it was too late. InDesign had replaced Quark in dominant mind share and market share. And, of course, it was integrated into Adobe's CS suite, which included Photoshop and Illustrator. Adobe also began expanding their graphic design footprint, picking up Dreamweaver, Fireworks and Flash from Macromedia.

QuarkXPress is still a viable app and preceded InDesign into e-publishing. That was an advantage for awhile. Now, of course, InDesign supports e-publishing more or less effectively. But, besides Serif and others on the graphic design front, WordPress is gobbling up space in blogging and web design. Of course there are other players in those fields as well so that Dreamweaver is not as essential as it once was.

Adobe has alienated a lot of people with their subscription software model, but they are hardly the Anti-Christ. In contrast to Quark they've made some excellent marketing decisions. For example, when Apple came out with Aperture, focusing specifically on digital photography, they offered no trial period. It was a unique app for a short time so some people ponied up Apple's asking price of $500. Then Lightroom came out in a mature beta which they provided for free for almost a year until version one came out. And then they undercut Apple's price by $200. By the time I paid $300 for the first full release of Lightroom I had been using it free for a year. Apple ended up cutting the price of Aperture and rebating the difference to their original customers, and providing a trial period for Aperture. But by then Lightroom had done to Aperture what InDesign did to Quark: They had the lions' share of the digital photography market. And they cut the price in half and set upgrades even lower. Apple never recovered from their stumbling start and development on Aperture lagged. Like Quark, Apple decided not to compete. Unlike Quark with XPress, though, Apple abandoned Aperture. Now Lightroom has moved onto the iPhone and the iPad, and Photoshop just joined it there. Apple has plenty of other fish to fry so they are cooperating with Adobe in this (as they've often done before). After all, Lightroom on the iPhone and Photoshop on the iPad can only help iPhone and iPad sales, which is where Apple really makes their money. Other than macOS X, software has always been a side show with Apple. For Adobe, software is their bread and butter.

I avoided the Creative Cloud for a long time but they offer their Photography suite for $10 a month so I finally bit the bullet. Lightroom Classic for the desktop, Lightroom CC for the iPhone (and the desktop—and the cloud) and Photoshop CC. But InDesign has no comparable discount. Hence my interest in Affinity Publisher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Whitedog said:

You don't need Sun Tzu or Machiavelli to work out Adobe's business strategy on this point. For one thing, Publisher won't represent any kind of a threat to Adobe for some time to come—if it ever does. If they change the INDD file format it will probably be for reasons having nothing to do with Affinity Publisher, which is not yet out of beta. Adobe already provides a more or less universal version for InDesign files with the IMDL format, which permits collaboration between people using differing versions of InDesign, and some non-Adobe applications as well.

If Publisher can handle IMDL files they won't have to bother with INDD, supposing it's as tricky as some folks here suggest.

On another topic, some have put in a claim for Quark XPress compatibility. Supposing Serif considers that important, if you wan't some insight into why Quark is so much less important than it once was, check out this detailed article in ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/quarkxpress-the-demise-of-a-design-desk-darling/. It turns out there was a lot I didn't know on the subject, in particular how InDesign spanked Quark on important feature development. For instance, in the subtle case of hanging type and not so subtle support for OpenType. And much else besides. Now, of course, Adobe has become complacent and, some feel, negligent of customer concerns. Though, in my opinion, Adobe has a long way to go to be as arrogant as Quark once was. And they are hardly resting on their laurels; consider Lightroom on the iPhone and Photoshop on the iPad. Of course the problem with Quark XPress is that it is still prohibitively expensive. If you add in the cost of the occasional upgrade for Quark, the price of InDesign CC is not nearly so daunting.

Of course we may only guess that Affinity Publisher will be priced the same as Affinity Photo and Designer. If it is, and if it is relatively feature complete when it comes out of beta, then it will have great appeal for those, like me, looking to break with, or avoid Adobe—and Quark. As for those with established InDesign workflows, the issue is more problematic.

Hi Whitedog,

I can only partly agree with you. Quark is not so expensive now. They cut the price by 50% for competitive upgrade (https://shopew.quark.com/p-189-quarkxpress-2018-competitive-upgrade.aspx) so you can buy it for 399 EUR instead for 829 EUR and you can upgrade for the same price if you own versions 2016 and 2017 (https://shopew.quark.com/default.aspx). IMO, Quark must cut the price once again by 50% and sell it for 200 EUR, because they can't offer what Adobe has (ID, AI and PS) and what Affinity has (Photo, Designer and now Publisher). To be honest, Quark can't compete with Photo and Designer and, even now, I can use Publisher for about 80% of my tasks. Publisher mainly lacks footnotes and Book feature (of course, a lot of other features, too) to be useful for creating long documents like books, manuals...

And you are wright that Quark killed itself. No other to blame. Adobe just grabe the chance. They saw it and they managed. Quark is not so well organized as ID is. They need to work on Measurement palette, menus... In one word, they need to hire somebody to do it.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petar Petrenko said:

Hi Whitedog,

I can only partly agree with you. Quark is not so expensive now. They cut the price by 50% for competitive upgrade (https://shopew.quark.com/p-189-quarkxpress-2018-competitive-upgrade.aspx) so you can buy it for 399 EUR instead for 829 EUR and you can upgrade for the same price if you own versions 2016 and 2017 (https://shopew.quark.com/default.aspx). IMO, Quark must cut the price once again by 50% and sell it for 200 EUR, because they can't offer what Adobe has (ID, AI and PS) and what Affinity has (Photo, Designer and now Publisher). To be honest, Quark can't compete with Photo and Designer and, even now, I can use Publisher for about 80% of my tasks. Publisher mainly lacks footnotes and Book feature (of course, a lot of other features, too) to be useful for creating long documents like books, manuals...

And you are wright that Quark killed itself. No other to blame. Adobe just grabe the chance. They saw it and they managed. Quark is not so well organized as ID is. They need to work on Measurement palette, menus... In one word, they need to hire somebody to do it.

You're right about the price. I had forgotten. Evan at that InDesign CC is competitive, $140 a year and not upgrade costs.

In the "old days" Pagemaker competed with Quark. I learned it first in school. But Adobe lost interest in Pagemaker and it fell behind Quark which became dominant as Pagemaker faded. So I studied Quark XPress and used it for awhile. Then InDesign came out and by then I knew my way around page layout programs and so I taught myself how to use it—with the help of some books on the subject, of course. And InDesign gradually replaced Quark in my work environment. At the time I didn't really understand the ins and outs of why Quark had fallen behind. As I recall Quark has always had problems with menus and, of course, their keyboard shortcuts were "different." If you used Adobe Products like Pagemaker, Photoshop and Illustrator, InDesign just fit. You had to learn a whole other vocabulary for XPress. Jumping between Adobe apps and Quark XPress required extra effort not required by InDesign. That wouldn't have mattered so much if Quark had kept up with feature development. But they did not. They rested too long on their laurels, depending, mistakenly, on customer loyalty. And, of course, their customer support was notoriously unpleasant and drove many people to the alternative product which was, after all, not so hard to learn, where help was relatively easy to come by. I've participated on Adobe forums (mostly for Lightroom) where "experts" and even Adobe engineers participate, answering questions and dealing up front with issues and bug reports, some of which were quite contentious. I can't say if Quark has anything comparable; I haven't used the product since version 8.5, the last one for which I had an education discount. I didn't use it much even then because I had moved on to InDesign.

As for fixing their issues with menus and such, they would have to see them as issues before they made an effort to fix them. And it may be that, once again, they are wearing blinders, refusing to recognize their usability issues. I expect they wouldn't have to hire anybody. They've got plenty of talent in house. But, as with Adobe, and Apple for that matter, it depends on where the company decides to employ that talent. I ran into that issue on the Adobe forums. Management just didn't have the same priorities their users did when it came to fixing problems. It's a matter of allocation of resources. Apple, for instance, is notorious for a short attention span. They'd rather invent a new product than fix an old one. So we lost AppleWorks, an superior app in its time, and Aperture, also a competent app before Apple's attention wandered. iWeb, an easy to use template driven web design program before template driven web design programs became ubiquitous. But iWeb depended on Apple cloud resources, something else Apple has only ever addressed half-heartedly.

In contrast, Adobe has really committed to their cloud strategy, beyond just the CC apps. If you work in a corporate environment I imagine their cloud is a fine way to manage assets—for a price, of course. I haven't heard that Quark has anything comparable. Again Adobe is excelling here. Most people now use smart phones as cameras, so Adobe developed a mobile version of Lightroom that utilizes the cloud to store your photos on the fly. You can do a lot with Lightroom CC right on your phone. As processors become more powerful it will only get better.

I have a particular advantage in that I live close enough to San Jose that I can attend the Photoshop user's group there, which meets on the Adobe campus and has access to Adobe experts of all kinds. They welcome feedback and it's a wonderful way for them to proselytize their products. And we get free pizza and soda to boot. That's where I learned about Lightroom in the beginning, when it was in beta. It was an exciting time, when digital photography was taking over from film. Again, they wanted to hear form us—and the app was free to use, which was an excellent way to develop mind share. Which became market share when the release version came out. And recently they cleared up my confusion about Lightroom CC and Lightroom Classic, which is the desktop version of the app that I use most. They messed up with naming the thing, but the two track approach is sound enough once you get used to their renaming scheme.

Photoshop and Lightroom are special cases, of course, because Adobe offers them in an inexpensive package deal. InDesign has no such advantage.

Perhaps Serif doesn't even know yet whether Publisher will follow the low cost model of Infinity Designer and Photo. But I hope they do, as do most of their beta testers, I'm sure. This would explain why they haven't commented on the subject on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my take: 

I have been using ID for over 10 years now. Just as Adobe reminded me of their annual $$$ subscription, I looked at Serif for my manna, and I found it. I was so delighted to see the Publisher Beta being available. 

I quickly downloaded and installed it, played around and tested it. Found some features still lacking (hence beta), but overall I am very delighted.

The issue with INDD and IDML import is a transitory one. IDML will be easier to handle than INDD. BUT... only for a short time. Then  you will find yourself creating more and more in Publisher, until Indesign is a relict of the past in your cranial cavity. It's been like this before. When I moved from Windows to Mac, I sorely missed Editplus and Total Commander. Now I am very happy with BBEdit and Forklift/Crax Commander. Are they identical? No, but you get used to.

I had a really good look at Publisher, and bar a few things, it does everything that 90% of the people who use Indesign do. Give it some time, and this figure will be closer to 100%. I for one cannot wait, and even if they only charge 50 Euro for the thingy, I will send them at least 300. Why? Because they deserve every bit of it. And the awesome thing is that it will NOT HAVE TO integrate with Photoshop or Illustrator, because all that functionality is available right from within the app, thanks to Photo and Designer.

So there. Vote with your money. Send it to them now, while they are still developing. Help spread the word. That will be worth its weight in gold - for us all. And as for Adobe, don't pay attention to them. Just don't. 

Cheers,

Helmar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Whitedog said:

You're right about the price. I had forgotten. Evan at that InDesign CC is competitive, $140 a year and not upgrade costs.

In the "old days" Pagemaker competed with Quark. I learned it first in school. But Adobe lost interest in Pagemaker and it fell behind Quark which became dominant as Pagemaker faded. So I studied Quark XPress and used it for awhile. Then InDesign came out and by then I knew my way around page layout programs and so I taught myself how to use it—with the help of some books on the subject, of course. And InDesign gradually replaced Quark in my work environment. At the time I didn't really understand the ins and outs of why Quark had fallen behind. As I recall Quark has always had problems with menus and, of course, their keyboard shortcuts were "different." If you used Adobe Products like Pagemaker, Photoshop and Illustrator, InDesign just fit. You had to learn a whole other vocabulary for XPress. Jumping between Adobe apps and Quark XPress required extra effort not required by InDesign. That wouldn't have mattered so much if Quark had kept up with feature development. But they did not. They rested too long on their laurels, depending, mistakenly, on customer loyalty. And, of course, their customer support was notoriously unpleasant and drove many people to the alternative product which was, after all, not so hard to learn, where help was relatively easy to come by. I've participated on Adobe forums (mostly for Lightroom) where "experts" and even Adobe engineers participate, answering questions and dealing up front with issues and bug reports, some of which were quite contentious. I can't say if Quark has anything comparable; I haven't used the product since version 8.5, the last one for which I had an education discount. I didn't use it much even then because I had moved on to InDesign.

As for fixing their issues with menus and such, they would have to see them as issues before they made an effort to fix them. And it may be that, once again, they are wearing blinders, refusing to recognize their usability issues. I expect they wouldn't have to hire anybody. They've got plenty of talent in house. But, as with Adobe, and Apple for that matter, it depends on where the company decides to employ that talent. I ran into that issue on the Adobe forums. Management just didn't have the same priorities their users did when it came to fixing problems. It's a matter of allocation of resources. Apple, for instance, is notorious for a short attention span. They'd rather invent a new product than fix an old one. So we lost AppleWorks, an superior app in its time, and Aperture, also a competent app before Apple's attention wandered. iWeb, an easy to use template driven web design program before template driven web design programs became ubiquitous. But iWeb depended on Apple cloud resources, something else Apple has only ever addressed half-heartedly.

[...]

So, where they are? Are Quark keeping them in secret for something spectacular? I doubt. :)


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Helmar said:

Here's my take: 

I have been using ID for over 10 years now. Just as Adobe reminded me of their annual $$$ subscription, I looked at Serif for my manna, and I found it. I was so delighted to see the Publisher Beta being available. 

I quickly downloaded and installed it, played around and tested it. Found some features still lacking (hence beta), but overall I am very delighted.

The issue with INDD and IDML import is a transitory one. IDML will be easier to handle than INDD. BUT... only for a short time. Then  you will find yourself creating more and more in Publisher, until Indesign is a relict of the past in your cranial cavity. It's been like this before. When I moved from Windows to Mac, I sorely missed Editplus and Total Commander. Now I am very happy with BBEdit and Forklift/Crax Commander. Are they identical? No, but you get used to.

I had a really good look at Publisher, and bar a few things, it does everything that 90% of the people who use Indesign do. Give it some time, and this figure will be closer to 100%. I for one cannot wait, and even if they only charge 50 Euro for the thingy, I will send them at least 300. Why? Because they deserve every bit of it. And the awesome thing is that it will NOT HAVE TO integrate with Photoshop or Illustrator, because all that functionality is available right from within the app, thanks to Photo and Designer.

So there. Vote with your money. Send it to them now, while they are still developing. Help spread the word. That will be worth its weight in gold - for us all. And as for Adobe, don't pay attention to them. Just don't. 

Cheers,

Helmar

I agree with this 100%.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Interesting that owning PagePlus which you can still buy for $20 can save you $450 on QuarkXPress...  :35_thinking:

Just about anything, including a CC license, will garner the same discount. And for those wanting to purchase via the Mac store...it's now available there, too. The Mac Store has some limitations (mostly related to sandboxing, so JavaScript at least, maybe even AppleScript).

The pricing has been this way for around 2-3 years or so. Heck, via a German magazine, there was a free version (full version) that one could download the installer and get the serial number via Quark. I believe it was one version back and could be updated. Student version are ridiculously inexpensive. (There's a funny story about student pricing as well...)


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MikeW said:

for those wanting to purchase via the Mac store

Yeah, that's how I got it, but if I had known about the competitive pricing at the time I might have done that instead because it is eligible for major-version upgrades.

If it is still on offer when QXP 2019 rolls around I might go for that as I do have the full CS6 master collection that appears to be eligible.

Of course, that might only matter if Affinity hasn't caught up enough by then... :9_innocent: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fde101 said:

Yeah, that's how I got it, but if I had known about the competitive pricing at the time I might have done that instead because it is eligible for major-version upgrades.

If it is still on offer when QXP 2019 rolls around I might go for that as I do have the full CS6 master collection that appears to be eligible.

Of course, that might only matter if Affinity hasn't caught up enough by then... :9_innocent: 

Hmm. I thought the magazine offer was available for upgrades. Must have been wrong about that. Though I could put you in-touch with someone at Q privately if desired as it is half the cost as an upgrade. If Q is nominally consistent, v.2019 would be about May/June area.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MikeW said:

the magazine offer

Assuming you mean the app store version, it is not - it will get updates within the 2018 version, but it is not eligible for major version upgrades.  This is pointed out repeatedly on the web site and is cited as the reason why the app store version is half the price of the "normal" version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Assuming you mean the app store version, it is not - it will get updates within the 2018 version, but it is not eligible for major version upgrades.  This is pointed out repeatedly on the web site and is cited as the reason why the app store version is half the price of the "normal" version.

No, I meant the magazine offer from a year or two ago, not the Mac Store version. Speaking of that Mac Store version, though, it's yet to be seen how they price those upgrades.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Yeah, that's how I got it, but if I had known about the competitive pricing at the time I might have done that instead because it is eligible for major-version upgrades.

If it is still on offer when QXP 2019 rolls around I might go for that as I do have the full CS6 master collection that appears to be eligible.

Of course, that might only matter if Affinity hasn't caught up enough by then... :9_innocent: 

I think it will be the same for QXP 2019. It is their discrete way of saying "the real price of QXP is 400 EUR now" until they officaly announce it. I can't say if they will go further with price dropping to 200 EUR via competitive pricing, after that.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When QuarkXPress first added IDML import there was an article about it on Planet Quark.

Seems to be relevant to this discussion.

IDML import in use: why this is huge
https://www.planetquark.com/2018/01/22/idml-import-in-use-why-this-is-huge/

The first point made is that this opens up to users the thousands of available templates which usually include an IDML version.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×