Heck, even MS PUBLISHER can impose a file however you want it. Want a 10up business card from the original 3.5×2? No problem. Why are we having to multi-paste our OWN spreads in a thousand dollar “creative suite”?

Adobe could have done the right thing. - but didn’t. Let’s be serious. InDesign should have been able to do everything Alap Imposer Pro did from Version 1. Period.

So what happened? Why did they let Quark win this “If we can beat you, we’ll take away your toys” last ditch effort?

That said… this crippled version of inBooklet is frustrating. I hate that there is no way to save the imposed file as an editable InDesign file. I really miss being able to do 8up spreads and save my stripper HOURS of work.

Boo, Adobe. Boo. Fix it. Make it better. Reward your dedicated customers. Update us with the goods. Let us be able to say “InDesign is the most imposing software there is.”

As for Quark? If you just concentrated on making a better product I could have held a little respect for you. This playground crap just makes me hate you now more than ever.

Just navigate with a FTP client.

Imposer Pro for InDesign (M/W)
InTools (M/W)
InEffects (W)

Quantities are definitely limited and there is not a return policy for discontinued items, nor any technical support available. However, if you know the product and just need an additional license, this may certainly help.

The installers for these products are still posted for others that just need a *fresh* copy.

Hope this helps.

Greg

–Lee

Of coarse they wouldn’t they want to promote good business, and allow all facets of the company to grow. Quark could make some money from the sale of the ALAP plug ins to Indesign users. They have chosen not to. So the almighty dollar isn’t the motivating factor here. It apparently is the reason I stated earlier “Quark’s goal of reestablishing dominance in the desktop software market”. So much money waisted by this move, they have to know that Adobe will just create there own features that are native to the program, and not plug-ins, making Indesign an even better product out of the box.

QuarkvsInDesign is full of good (back) design news. Or bad news, in this case. Once, not long ago, there was a little software company with an interesting name: A Lowly Apprentice Production, Inc., or ALAP. ALAP didn’t make software that…

I left Quark at version 4 - and will never go back…

I can understand Quark not wanting to promote plugins for Indesign - but they should consider what happened to Sega in the games industry.. By refusing to license their software titles for the Sony Playstation, look what happened to them when everyone bought Playstations and knocked Sega off their perch! Interestingly, Sega now license their software products to other platforms - but what share of the hardware market do they have now?

Quark - do yourself a favour and make money from the Indesign plugins anyway! You are only losing potential income from dropping them - as many Indesign users have no intention of switching to Quark anyway, so you may as well take their money for the plugins!

J.

I had to laugh so hard… Your logic is amusing:
If Quark would continue to sell InBooklet, how would that promote Quark? Rather it would promote InDesign, thus digging the Quark grave, right?

Side question: How would you have done, if you were Quark? Would you support InDesign? Isn’t business about making money??

Regards
Peter

This sounds like an act of arrogant desperation! “If you don’t want to play my way, I’ll take my ball and go home.”

Good riddance, Quark. I hope others are seeing the light and turning away from the dark side.

So, here’s my next prediction: I bet, the minute the ALAP purchase announcement was made, all the InDesign plug-in developers called Adobe and said: “We can make your next InBooklet.” Adobe’s engineers simultaneously set about reviving their incomplete efforts to do imposition internally.

By the first of this year, I bet Adobe had a firm plan. While they could finish the job in-house, I think they chose not to. I think they partnered with an independent plug-in maker to develop an imposition plug-in—which would then be sold outright to Adobe, not licensed. Licensing is becoming too risky for Adobe in markets like this. Someone—RogueSheep, WoodWing, or one of the others—is working on it right now. InD 5 / CS3 will ship with an integrated imposition engine. That’s my prediction.

It’s obvious here that Quark doesn’t understand the “switcher” demographic at all. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but people switch because of the program, not plug-ins. Do any of you plan to switch back to Quark just because of these new XTensions?

They would have been better off just leaving it that these plug-ins would be made available as QuarkXPress XTensions. The “taking the bite out” rationalization is transparent, antagonistic, and unnecessary.

The people who are going to be hurt most by this are service bureaus who have no choice but to support both programs and rely on these InDesign plug-ins in their workflows.