[Impleneted] Open InDesign files with Publisher

[Henri H]

I have downloaded the Beta version of Publisher.

I found out that it is not possible to open or import InDesign files. I hope this will be possible with the final version.

Years ago i have worked with Adobe Pagemaker and made the transition to Indesign. In InDesign was ik possible to open "Pagemaker" and "Quark Express" files. That was a smooth and easy transition.

When Publisher will not be able to open or import InDesign files i can not open all my files that i have made over more than 10 years. That would be a huge obstacle.

So ...........

[Patrick Connor]

@Henri H

Welcome to the Serif Affinity forum

We do not yet support indesign import so I have moved your post to the suggestions forum, but I suggest you read and continue this conversation in this similar pinned thread

[Petar Petrenko]

2 hours ago, Henri H said:

I have downloaded the Beta version of Publisher.

I found out that it is not possible to open or import InDesign files. I hope this will be possible with the final version.

Years ago i have worked with Adobe Pagemaker and made the transition to Indesign. In InDesign was ik possible to open "Pagemaker" and "Quark Express" files. That was a smooth and easy transition.

When Publisher will not be able to open or import InDesign files i can not open all my files that i have made over more than 10 years. That would be a huge obstacle.

So ...........

You will have to create PDF file and import it into Publisher. This import feature is really fantastic!!!

[BLKay]

Yes the PDF trick works very well.  

[Henri H]

I have several thousands Indesign layouts on my Mac.

As long as OSX support my Creative Suite 6 converting to pdf could be a option.

But i am afraid that the OS after Mojave will no longer support my Creative Suite 6. At that time i will no longer be able to convert my InDesign files to pdf.

[Uwe367]

Oh yes. PDF Import works great. You can edit the PDF and after editing you can save it as a publisher file.

Great feature

[Petar Petrenko]

24 minutes ago, Henri H said:

I have several thousands Indesign layouts on my Mac.

As long as OSX support my Creative Suite 6 converting to pdf could be a option.

But i am afraid that the OS after Mojave will no longer support my Creative Suite 6. At that time i will no longer be able to convert my InDesign files to pdf.

If you are not on Mojave yet, wait until you convert the most important ones into PDF. Also, converting to IDML is the best option because it preserves all features of INDD format and are way smaller than INDD. But, with IDML you will have to pray Affinity team to add import IDML feature ASAP.

[jmwellborn]

An even huger obstacle is having InDesign files that cannot be opened by any means whatsoever except by subscribing to Adobe.  I have every single document and book worth a hill of beans duplicated in PDF.  Before Publisher I could only print them (rather wobbly, I must admit) but now Publisher can already import them for editing.    The Beta may have a few bugs right now, but it is a winner already in my book.  (Books)

[tarknz]

What is missing from this discussion is that besides having hundreds of native InDesign files (way too many to convert to PDF files and yes the import of PDF is great!) there are times when I want to send an InDesign file to a client or another graphic designer. I cannot reasonably expect them to own Affinity Publisher. If I cannot import native INDD files or export to INDD then my use for Publisher is diminished, regardless of how fantastic it is. InDesign is an industry standard and if Publishers wishes to match or surpass it then indd compatibility is a must.

[Petar Petrenko]

1 hour ago, tarknz said:

What is missing from this discussion is that besides having hundreds of native InDesign files (way too many to convert to PDF files and yes the import of PDF is great!) there are times when I want to send an InDesign file to a client or another graphic designer. I cannot reasonably expect them to own Affinity Publisher. If I cannot import native INDD files or export to INDD then my use for Publisher is diminished, regardless of how fantastic it is. InDesign is an industry standard and if Publishers wishes to match or surpass it then indd compatibility is a must.

I don't think it will ever happen. IDML yes, but not INDD. The goal of Affinity is to convert them into Affinity format and start using it. For now through PDF and in (near) future with some filters for IDML and so. BTW, "industry standard" is the app which the designer is used to work with and for the customer it is PDF file. You are not supposed to deliver source files to the customer because he can continue to work on it by himself or with another designer.

[Ranazomic]

Agree

On 10/6/2018 at 7:59 AM, Petar Petrenko said:

I don't think it will ever happen. IDML yes, but not INDD. The goal of Affinity is to convert them into Affinity format and start using it. For now through PDF and in (near) future with some filters for IDML and so. BTW, "industry standard" is the app which the designer is used to work with and for the customer it is PDF file. You are not supposed to deliver source files to the customer because he can continue to work on it by himself or with another designer.

 

[A for Design]

On 10/6/2018 at 7:59 AM, Petar Petrenko said:

I don't think it will ever happen. IDML yes, but not INDD. The goal of Affinity is to convert them into Affinity format and start using it. For now through PDF and in (near) future with some filters for IDML and so. BTW, "industry standard" is the app which the designer is used to work with and for the customer it is PDF file. You are not supposed to deliver source files to the customer because he can continue to work on it by himself or with another designer.

This is just plain silly.
Affinity Publisher is doomed if it does not at least support a flawless import/export of .idml files.

If you want to be a serious player in the graphic industry, you just can't ignore the biggest player in the market.
There will be at least a long transistion time before Publisher will be picked up.

Dig a bit deeper in the history of InDesign and you'll know why.
At the time InDesign was introduced, QuarkXpress was the industry standard.
Yes, Adobe was well known, but their former layout application(FrameWork) was mediocre at best.

It took Adobe a lot of effort and many years and tricks to get users to use InDesign.
Adobe was in a waaaay better position to achieve this then Affinity is now and here's why:

• Quark had been ignoring user's needs for years and were very arrogant towards them.
• Apple forced it's users towards OSX, which wasn't compatible with OS 9 at all.
  There was a crappy transition period, but in the end every application needed to be replaced anyway
• QuarkXpress was extrmely late introducing their first version compatible with OSX (v5).
  They didn't even bother to add significant new features.
  They did bother to charge the full update price, which was very high at the time (say, the prce of the entire Creative Suite)
• Adobe did have a good reputation and allready Illustrator and Photoshop were the industry standards.
  Well.... there was heavy competition for Illustrator, namely Freehand, which Adobe took over
• InDesign was added tot the Creative Suit without any additional cost.
  As allmost every company in the graphic industry allready used Ps and Ill, it was technically a freeby.
  Remember ... it took QuarkXpress a few years to release it's first version for OSX (5.0) and it bugged like hell until 5.1.x came to market.
  For which they charged another huge amount of money.
• Still... it took Adobe 4 versions of InDesign (CS2) to overthrow the former reign QuarkXpress.
  At the time, InDesign CS2 was in allmost every part of it superior to QuarkXpress.
  
  Oh and you know what .... InDesign CS 2 was the first version with a flawless import of QuarkXpress documents.
  Not a coïncidence.

 

Please don't make the same mistake as Adobe and support .idml (and .indd) as soon and as flawless as possible.
This is essential for success.

Btw, the ability to open pdf-files is need, but this is also far from flawless.
Even if it was perfect, you'd still be missing paragraph, character and object styles chained textframes, layout pages etc.

[Petar Petrenko]

1 hour ago, A for Design said:

This is just plain silly.
1. Affinity Publisher is doomed if it does not at least support a flawless import/export of .idml files.

If you want to be a serious player in the graphic industry, you just can't ignore the biggest player in the market.
There will be at least a long transistion time before Publisher will be picked up.

Dig a bit deeper in the history of InDesign and you'll know why.
At the time InDesign was introduced, QuarkXpress was the industry standard.
Yes, Adobe was well known, but their former layout application(FrameWork) was mediocre at best.

It took Adobe a lot of effort and many years and tricks to get users to use InDesign.
Adobe was in a waaaay better position to achieve this then Affinity is now and here's why:

• Quark had been ignoring user's needs for years and were very arrogant towards them.
• Apple forced it's users towards OSX, which wasn't compatible with OS 9 at all.
  There was a crappy transition period, but in the end every application needed to be replaced anyway
• QuarkXpress was extrmely late introducing their first version compatible with OSX (v5).
  They didn't even bother to add significant new features.
  2. They did bother to charge the full update price, which was very high at the time (say, the prce of the entire Creative Suite)
• Adobe did have a good reputation and allready Illustrator and Photoshop were the industry standards.
  Well.... there was heavy competition for Illustrator, namely Freehand, which Adobe took over
• InDesign was added tot the Creative Suit without any additional cost.
  As allmost every company in the graphic industry allready used Ps and Ill, it was technically a freeby.
  Remember ... it took QuarkXpress a few years to release it's first version for OSX (5.0) and it bugged like hell until 5.1.x came to market.
  For which they charged another huge amount of money.
• Still... it took Adobe 4 versions of InDesign (CS2) to overthrow the former reign QuarkXpress.
  At the time, InDesign CS2 was in allmost every part of it superior to QuarkXpress.
  
  Oh and you know what .... InDesign CS 2 was the first version with a flawless import of QuarkXpress documents.
  Not a coïncidence.

 

Please don't make the same mistake as Adobe and support .idml (and .indd) as soon and as flawless as possible.
This is essential for success.

Btw, the ability to open pdf-files is need, but this is also far from flawless.
Even if it was perfect, you'd still be missing paragraph, character and object styles chained textframes, layout pages etc.

1. Have you read my post carefully? My second sentence was: IDML yes, but not INDD.

2. Quark had is high price even before Adobe came with CS, so Adobe was in position to manipulate with their price and to lower it to destroy Quark.

[A for Design]

14 minutes ago, Petar Petrenko said:

1. Have you read my post carefully? My second sentence was: IDML yes, but not INDD.

2. Quark had is high price even before Adobe came with CS, so Adobe was in position to manipulate with their price and to lower it to destroy Quark.

1. I did, you stated IDML support should be desirable on which I agree.
   To be succesful though this propably isn't enough.
   I disagree on your focus on solely be able to deliver a good pdf.
   This will only be sufficient for individuals / freelancers who don't cooperate with others.
   For businesses it will be very important to easily adopt / transition to another worflow.
   Atm the ability to import AND export to an inter-exchangeable format is essential.
   
   Layout-software is relatively complex and targeted at a (more) professional market, therefor I think the needs of that market can't be ignored.
   I would love to see Affinity Publisher succeed.
   It would be a shame if all the effort  that went into development would end in a discontinued application.
    
2. True and that's a big reason why Affinity Publisher will have a harder time to succeed then Adobe did at the time.
   
   Oh wait... there are more big issues...:
   Adobe products are adopted by individuals at large scale.
   Students learn Adobe at school (without alternatives)
   For them Adobe is super cheap, so most will not look further.
   
   It costs time to master layout-software, so it has to be worth the investment.
   
   
    

[Thomas_A]

6 hours ago, A for Design said:

1. I did, you stated IDML support should be desirable on which I agree.
   To be succesful though this propably isn't enough.
   I disagree on your focus on solely be able to deliver a good pdf.
   This will only be sufficient for individuals / freelancers who don't cooperate with others.
   For businesses it will be very important to easily adopt / transition to another worflow.
   Atm the ability to import AND export to an inter-exchangeable format is essential.
   
   Layout-software is relatively complex and targeted at a (more) professional market, therefor I think the needs of that market can't be ignored.
   I would love to see Affinity Publisher succeed.
   It would be a shame if all the effort  that went into development would end in a discontinued application.
    
2. True and that's a big reason why Affinity Publisher will have a harder time to succeed then Adobe did at the time.
   
   Oh wait... there are more big issues...:
   Adobe products are adopted by individuals at large scale.
   Students learn Adobe at school (without alternatives)
   For them Adobe is super cheap, so most will not look further.
   
   It costs time to master layout-software, so it has to be worth the investment.
   
   
    

I personally am sure that Serif will succeed with Affinity Publisher. They will probably not succeed with customers/parts of the pro market that want full Adobe compatibility (read/write indd) without needing to pay for the Adobe software.

Adobe products have been adopted at large scale for many years, even decades. They are the 200-pound gorilla in the room and in many regards, Industry standard. I don´t believe that the driving force behind the Affinity range of software is to throw Adobe from the throne but to create modern software that pleases a wide range of customers.

Just my 2 cts...

[Seneca]

1 hour ago, Thomas_A said:

They will probably not succeed with customers/parts of the pro market that want full Adobe compatibility (read/write indd) without needing to pay for the Adobe software.

Can you point me to any other publishing software that can read and write .indd files except inDesign and I'll be grateful?

I'm sure you meant read/write IDML files. If you mean that then this is coming. We need to be patient.

Publisher has not been released yet and new feature are being added constantly.

Once it reaches the feature complete status we may have a better idea about what it can do. 

[MikeW]

1 hour ago, Thomas_A said:

I personally am sure that Serif will succeed with Affinity Publisher. They will probably not succeed with customers/parts of the pro market that want full Adobe compatibility (read/write indd) without needing to pay for the Adobe software. ...

 

13 minutes ago, Seneca said:

I'm sure you meant read/write IDML files. ...

I think Thomas did mean .indd import/export.

Thomas, it isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons. One of which is Adobe changes the .indd format just about on every single update to InDesign. That would be a nightmare for Serif even if they could reverse engineer the file format.

If you need ID compatibility, you need to use ID. And not just a particular version of ID, but best if the exact same version the client uses. There is no real means of true compatibility. It is also often not sufficient to even use .idml for round-tripping files with a client if there are different ID versions being used without acknowledgement between design & client that there may be reflow issues.

Mike

[Thomas_A]

22 hours ago, MikeW said:

 

I think Thomas did mean .indd import/export.

Thomas, it isn't going to happen for a variety of reasons. One of which is Adobe changes the .indd format just about on every single update to InDesign. That would be a nightmare for Serif even if they could reverse engineer the file format.

If you need ID compatibility, you need to use ID. And not just a particular version of ID, but best if the exact same version the client uses. There is no real means of true compatibility. It is also often not sufficient to even use .idml for round-tripping files with a client if there are different ID versions being used without acknowledgement between design & client that there may be reflow issues.

Mike

I meant .indd, but my comment was rather sarcastic (sorry if I did a bad job at that...).

There are so many threads like this one, where someone complains about not being able to "work" on Indesign files and it is usually because they think Serif needs to provide such a feature in APub, otherwise the product will just simply be a failure. I don´t see it that way - and Serif will get my money the day they release Publisher because I personally think that it is a great product.

Some sort of interchangeability would be great of course - but then the next problem will be that APub and InDesign will probably not render everything exactly the same - and the complaints will start again.