New Contenders in the Editorial Systems Market - Impressed

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Database-Driven Systems (continued) Vendor/System Description Architecture/ Database Unisys Global Media Hermes 10 High-end newspaper system being adapted to magazines; Woodwing supplies OEM technology for Adobe configurations Van Gennep PlanSystem3 Combination editorial and book makeup system for magazines and catalogs; North American sales partner is Quad Graphics Woodwing Software Smart Connection Enterprise Database-driven version for larger workgroups (magazines and newspapers) Folder-Based Systems Web Services architecture using SOAP, XML, J2EE, etc. Multiple SQL database choices Both Mac OS X and Windows servers; ODBC compliant; MySQL, Oracle and MS SQL 3-tier architecture; any SQL database (default is Open- Source MySQL) Vendor/System Description Architecture/ Database Adobe Systems InCopy Bridge Workflow plug-ins Harris & Baseview File-based editorial system that enables concurrent editing within an InDesign page; designed for workgroups of approximately 2-7 people NewsEditPro Original Baseview system for small newspapers, also magazines Managing Editor TruEdit 3.1 Collaborative workflow system for InDesign and InCopy Woodwing Software Smart Connection Light Smart Connection Pro Adobe plug-ins for small magazines, workgroups of up to 7 people Adobe plug-ins for workflow at medium-size magazines File-based system doesn’t require an explicit folder hierarchy; crossplatform support Folder-based system for Mac Folder-based system; root folder can be on any volume Requires InDesign, InCopy and Mac OS X or Windows 2000 or XP Main Client Software InCopy/InDesign or Unisys News Content Manager CopyDesk/Xpress and InCopy/ InDesign InCopy/InDesign only Main Client Software InCopy/InDesign only Own editing client integrated with InDesign and Xpress InCopy/InDesign plug-ins InCopy/InDesign only Same as SC Light InCopy/InDesign only Browser Client Options* Contributors 200+ newspaper customers worldwide and 5 magazines (3 in Europe, 1 in Latin America, 1 in U.S.) Read-only Edition Planning and Layout view WebApps for Admin and Contributors; Remote Module for H&J, runs with InCopy locally Browser Client Options* 150+ magazines and catalogs incl. Reader’s Digest (multiple sites), ACP, Prisma Presse (France); from 10 to 530 connections About 10 early customers, including 6 magazines (at least 2 publishers have SC Enterprise running on top of Documentum) Editorial Systems $3,000-$8,000 per seat typical, depending on configuration (not incl. license fees) $15,000 server license, $1,700 per main client; PlanMaker edition building module: $4,000 per seat $5,000 for server license plus $750/seat for editors and $1,000/seat for designers (not including Adobe software) None Not disclosed Included as part of InCopy CS, which retails for $249 None About 1,000 Pro systems total, incl. about 75 in magazines None Not disclosed Plug-ins cost $249 for each InDesign and InCopy user Remote editing with simplified layout in InCopy document; no admin Supports Remote Module of SC Enterprise (see above) Systems Installed Worldwide Systems Installed Worldwide Pricing (estimate, not including installation) Pricing (estimate, not including installation) About 50 529 euros/seat (incl. InCopy) About 150 799 euros/seat (incl. InCopy) Workflow Workflow control included as standard Deadline-driven Advertising, Editorial and Production workflows. Track Job bags containing tangible and intangible assets Automated workflow supported Workflow Check-in/check-out for editorial contents within InDesign file on shared file server. Enables editing layouts while InCopy users write/edit Not disclosed Folders on shared file server act as primary workflow mechanism Folder-based workflow for InDesign and InCopy No automated workflow Automated workflow supports publication, issue, section and basket — Steve Edwards Volume 4, Number 13 • The Seybold Report • Analyzing Publishing Technologies 15
Editorial Systems NxEditorial’s XML Editor (left) with a Web page. At the bottom is a collection of content that has been associated with this story and can be tagged and used in print, on the Web, etc. items are still missing, including a switch to an open, scalable architecture and standard database, a need that is even more apparent in light of the new competitors. Also of concern is the lack of a means of extracting QPS content (as XML-tagged files) for publishing on the Web on a real-time or scheduled basis. QPS customers have been able to use tools such as Callas Software’s Autopilot or PCI’s Internet Content Publishing System (iCPS) to import or export content and metadata automatically into or out of QPS, but they run as server products and come from third parties, whereas they should be integral parts of QPS. Also missing are items such as automated handling of jump stories, a browser interface for remote access and login-based preferences. Quark is well aware of these shortcomings and, in fact, addresses them in QPS Enterprise, but at a much higher price. Will they be added to QPS Classic later? That remains uncertain. If Quark goes ahead with the QPS Plus midlevel system, these features could be part of the Plus offering. So far, Quark has declined to discuss the details of the future product line. To upgrade or not? Upgrading to QPS Classic 3 has become controversial as customers weigh the benefits against the costs. On the one hand, the benefits, though modest, are critical for nearly anyone using the system for serious business. One leading integrator, asked about the prospects for QPS sales, said he expected “a breakout” this fall and winter as customers upgrade from 2.12 to 3. On the other hand, the lack of some important features that are now available from competitive systems has disappointed many customers contemplating the upgrade. This position was reflected by another leading integrator, who called the Classic 3 release too little, too late. That integrator expects a significant migration away from QPS. Weighing the benefits against the cost is difficult. Quark points out that it is offering the upgrade free to customers with whom it has maintenance contracts. However, based on what we have been told, we believe the number of customers in that category is minimal. The explanation for this is partly that QPS customers typically have not opted for maintenance contracts and partly that those that did were under contract with Modulo Systems, which held all QPS maintenance agreements until January 2003 and has retained the rights to that list since then. As a result, Quark started 2003 with a formidable challenge in building a new list from scratch. One integrator, speculating on how many QPS maintenance contracts Quark might have, said he “could count [them] on one hand.” Customers without maintenance contracts have the option of paying for the upgrade or buying a maintenance contract first and then getting the upgrade free. Customers with maintenance contracts through Modulo have to pay for the upgrade. Some customers might be more inclined to make the upgrade if they had a better idea of when Quark would offer some of the features that QPS still lacks, but so far Quark hasn’t announced when additional functionality will be available or what it will entail. Besides the costs likely to be involved in upgrading QPS, customers also need to upgrade to Xpress 6 (typically $200–$250 per seat) and to OS X. The other market. For prospective customers not already using QPS systems, Classic 3 will be pitted against a growing band of competitors in the market for new sales. Quark declined to divulge the list price of a new QPS 3 system, so we asked a few integrators what they would charge. The best response came from one leading integrator, who asked to remain anonymous. He said that typical pricing would be about $25,000 per server and $1,500 per seat for software, not counting installation and service charges, which would bring the cost of a 55-seat installation to between $125,000 and $170,000. Net-linx Teams with Seinet for New System Although the system shown at its Nexpo debut wasn’t brand-new, Net-linx’s appearance at the show reflected a change almost as significant as a new system: a rejuvenated product line based on technology obtained through an agreement in January with Seinet of Spain. As a result of the agreement, Seinet’s Xtent editorial system technology has become the heart of Net-linx’s editorial offering, and Net-linx has taken over responsibility for the development and distribution of Xtent in the international newspaper market. The current system, which Net-linx is calling nxEditorial (taking its position opposite nxAdvertising), is essentially Xtent with some enhancements taken from Net-linx’s earlier Insiight system, which has been replaced in the product line. However, Net-linx said that this isn’t merely a case of reselling an existing product. Over time, it will serve as the starting point of a new J2EE-based development project. Net-linx has hired new programmers to work on this technology, 16 October 6, 2004 • The Seybold Report • Analyzing Publishing Technologies
Page 1 and 2: Editorial Systems New Contenders in
Page 3 and 4: Editorial Systems Browser client fo
Page 5 and 6: Editorial Systems Article property
Page 7 and 8: Editorial Systems Smart Connection
Page 9: Editorial Systems Database-Driven S
Page 13 and 14: Editorial Systems 3 views of an art
Page 15 and 16: Editorial Systems InDesign and Xpre
Page 17 and 18: Editorial Systems about 6,000 seats

New Contenders in the Editorial Systems Market - Impressed

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?