I disagree on your focus on solely be able to deliver a good pdf. To be succesful though this propably isn't enough. I did, you stated IDML support should be desirable on which I agree. 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. Have you read my post carefully? My second sentence was: IDML yes, but not INDD.Ģ.
Convert publisher to indesign 2017 update#
They did bother to charge the full update price, which was very high at the time (say, the prce of the entire Creative Suite)ġ. Affinity Publisher is doomed if it does not at least support a flawless import/export of. indd) as soon and as flawless as possible.ītw, the ability to open pdf-files is need, but this is also far from flawless.Įven if it was perfect, you'd still be missing paragraph, character and object styles chained textframes, layout pages etc.ġ. Please don't make the same mistake as Adobe and support. InDesign CS 2 was the first version with a flawless import of QuarkXpress documents.
it took Adobe 4 versions of InDesign (CS2) to overthrow the former reign QuarkXpress.Īt the time, InDesign CS2 was in allmost every part of it superior to QuarkXpress. 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.įor which they charged another huge amount of money. InDesign was added tot the Creative Suit without any additional cost.Īs allmost every company in the graphic industry allready used Ps and Ill, it was technically a freeby. there was heavy competition for Illustrator, namely Freehand, which Adobe took over They did bother to charge the full update price, which was very high at the time (say, the prce of the entire Creative Suite)Īdobe did have a good reputation and allready Illustrator and Photoshop were the industry standards. They didn't even bother to add significant new features. QuarkXpress was extrmely late introducing their first version compatible with OSX (v5).
There was a crappy transition period, but in the end every application needed to be replaced anyway Quark had been ignoring user's needs for years and were very arrogant towards them.Īpple forced it's users towards OSX, which wasn't compatible with OS 9 at all. It took Adobe a lot of effort and many years and tricks to get users to use InDesign.Īdobe was in a waaaay better position to achieve this then Affinity is now and here's why: Yes, Adobe was well known, but their former layout application(FrameWork) was mediocre at best. There will be at least a long transistion time before Publisher will be picked up.ĭig a bit deeper in the history of InDesign and you'll know why.Īt the time InDesign was introduced, QuarkXpress was the industry standard. If you want to be a serious player in the graphic industry, you just can't ignore the biggest player in the market. 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.Īffinity Publisher is doomed if it does not at least support a flawless import/export of.
Convert publisher to indesign 2017 pdf#
BTW, "industry standard" is the app which the designer is used to work with and for the customer it is PDF file. For now through PDF and in (near) future with some filters for IDML and so. The goal of Affinity is to convert them into Affinity format and start using it. InDesign is an industry standard and if Publishers wishes to match or surpass it then indd compatibility is a must. If I cannot import native INDD files or export to INDD then my use for Publisher is diminished, regardless of how fantastic it is. I cannot reasonably expect them to own Affinity Publisher. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
