New Contenders in the Editorial Systems Market - Impressed

More documents

Recommendations

Info

tem. Second, the open architecture and customizability will appeal to certain types of customers at the outset, and probably more customers later. One of the major benefits of the architecture is that it is appropriate for Web applications, where open-source technology, PHP scripting and native XML communications are more commonly used than in the traditional newspaper market. As more newspapers move aggressively to enhance their cross-media publishing efforts, this strength of the Enterprise system should become increasingly valuable. Moving into this market at this time should be good for Woodwing, since QPS users are now facing the critical decision of whether to upgrade with Quark or switch to one of the emerging suppliers. How these competitors will fare in making the sale is still unclear. Enterprise is off to a good start with 16 quick sales, but that’s just a beginning compared with QPS and Baseview. Quark Offers QPS Classic 3 for OS X, Xpress 6 Almost two years ago, Quark outlined a new QPS strategy that would address complaints that the original system architecture had become outdated and needed to be upgraded if QPS was to retain its dominant position in the market. The strategy involved setting up a three-tier hierarchy in which a system based on the existing proprietary architecture would serve at the entry level under the name QPS Classic. This system is the mainstay of the line today. The strategy called for a midlevel system to be added above the Classic, built around an SQL database. This system, to be called QPS Plus, remains in the category of “future products,” not yet given a detailed description or target release date. The third system in the strategy, called QPS Enterprise, was designed around Quark’s existing DMS technology to serve the high end, or “enterprise” market, where it is currently being sold. It uses an Oracle 9i database and offers a host of application modules to address the needs of newspapers, magazines and some other customers. From a technology standpoint, QPS Enterprise might seem like a possible migration path for lower-level QPS customers. However, for reasons of price, QPS Enterprise remains out of the range of most traditional QPS customers. (Quark declined to tell us how many QPS Enterprise systems have been installed to date.) The focus of our interest here is QPS Classic, which for more than 10 years has dominated the magazine market and also competed well against some dedicated newspaper systems, especially in the small and midrange markets. Contributing to its success have been its status-based workflow and moderate price, as well as the fact that it comes from a well-known company that was expected to be around for a long time in an industry known for consolidation, mergers and the sudden disappearance of companies and product lines. In addition, since many customers were already using Xpress, QPS was a logical course for those who wanted a multiuser system. Increasingly, though, QPS has suffered from Quark’s sluggishness in offering upgrades, both to remain compatible with other industry advances and to add features that hadn’t been available in version 2.12. QPS Classic 3 was hoped to address both needs. Classic 3. Like the Classic 2.12 system, Classic 3 is built around the Quark Dispatch Server and a proprietary database. (Actually, it uses a RAM-based file system in which header information is stored with the file and loaded when the Dispatch Server is started up.) It is targeted at users needing up to 120 seats (the typical size is 55 seats, according to one integrator), although it has been installed in some larger configurations. The most important new features of Classic 3 address compatibility issues: support for Quark’s own Xpress 6 and for Apple’s OS X. (Clients running OS 9.2 can still run CopyDesk, but no other QPS applications.) Support for Xpress 6 and OS X gives Classic 3 users the functionality incumbent in those developments, including the ability to work on different elements of a print or Web layout by distributing page-creation functions among editorial, design, Web and print-production personnel. Print and Web layouts can be stored in the same file to increase consistency and simplify the repurposing of print content for the Web. Text can be synchronized for multiple uses so that updating the text once can affect all instances, including both Web and print. Also included is the ability to import Excel data directly into Xpress layouts. Redlining and revision comparison features will be added to track editorial changes by multiple reviewers, Quark said. Still missing. While the enhancements in Classic 3 were essential for Quark to retain its QPS customers, many Editorial Systems Smart Connection Elements palette. The Elements palette provides a comprehensive view of the workflow, including elements in the issue, their current basket and page assignment and some icon markers on the left. The pencil indicates that the InDesign user has checked out the layout, but the editor can still edit the contents. The flag indicates that an InCopy user has changed the article and has sent it to the Ready basket. The buttons across the top are for checking stories in and out, refreshing content from InCopy and alerting an InCopy user of an update to the design that affects the article. Items in the list are sorted based on the instruction at the bottom (here, grouping articles together). Volume 4, Number 13 • The Seybold Report • Analyzing Publishing Technologies 13
Editorial Systems Database-Driven Systems Vendor/System Description Architecture/ Database Agile Enterprise TeamBase Cross-platform system suited for large publications and groups with complex editorial, photo desk and archive needs Atex Media Command (AMC) Prestige Standards-based system serving newspaper and magazine markets Harris & Baseview IQue Primarily serving low- to midrange newspapers; also magazines; leader in number of systems installed: 2,500+, incl. editorial, advertising, etc. Modulo Systems Concerto Brand-new system built by former QPS distributor, aimed at newspapers, magazines and other applications Quark QPS Classic 3 For small and midrange magazines and newspapers, dominating magazine market for years. New Version 3 primarily adds support for OS X and Xpress 6 QPS Enterprise Version of QPS based on Quark DMS; preferred upgrade path for QPS customers but pricey SoftCare K4 Publishing System 5.1 Magazine Editorial and Production Systems, October 2004 Direct QPS Classic competitor; first magazine editorial system for InDesign. Softcare is a former QPS integrator SQL database with ability to mix Mac and PC clients N-tier architecture, Oracle, Sybase, MS SQL database support Version 3: C-Tree database by FairCom; version 4: JBoss app server with MySQL database N-tier architecture, SQL database; SQL Server Proprietary. RAMbased file system in which header information is stored with the file and loaded when the Dispatch Server starts Main Client Software Choice of CopyDesk/Xpress with Word or InCopy/InDesign CopyDesk/Xpress and InCopy/ InDesign; Word integration Own NewsEditPro IQue editing program integrated with InDesign and Xpress; expected to add CopyDesk and InCopy support CopyDesk/Xpress and InCopy/ InDesign; H&J interface to Word promised CopyDesk/Xpress only Oracle CopyDesk/Xpress only PrimeBase SQL InCopy/InDesign; Word for contributors; Javabased file manager can check in any file type Browser Client Options* Admin, Contributor, H&J via Web for InCopy/InDesign only Admin, content creation and editing IQueWeb thin client for contributors Harmony offers Admin and Contributor functions; H&J coming via Quasar; Word interface coming 30 total, incl. 6 magazine sites (50 publications) 65+total, incl. 5 in magazines About 500 IQue database-driven systems total; about 75 in magazines 6 “pioneer” sites, incl. 3 magazines None Quark claimed 900 Dispatch Servers as of Nov. 2003, typically 55 seats each; about 48% in magazines, 39% in newspapers WebCopyDesk announced in 2002 for remote editorial work; also Admin Systems Installed Worldwide Total not disclosed, but Quark claimed to have 45-50 DMS sites when QPS enterprise was announced in 2002 Admin 44 sites in 9 countries; mostly magazines Pricing (estimate, not including installation) $25,000-$50,000 server license plus $1,295 per production client (not including Adobe, Quark or Microsoft licenses) Server licenses from $9,900; client licenses from $1,500 per client (not including Adobe or Quark software) Price not disclosed, but estimated to be $1,000-$2,000 per seat average, including server software but no Adobe or Quark licenses $27,000-$40,000 server license plus $1,250-$2,750 per main client (not including Adobe or Quark software) $25,000 server license plus $1,500 per client (quoted by a leading integrator) Workflow Designers and editors working in parallel; edit once for print, Web and sister publications; triggers and automated processes Rules driven; included as standard Metadata-driven workflow with statuses and workflow stages Based on hot folders, baskets, statuses and agents to automate the flow of data and performance of tasks; scriptable Status-based workflow Not disclosed DMS Workflow Engine supports conditional workflows, prioritizing and automation of certain tasks $15,000 server license plus $1,500 per main client (not including Adobe software) Routing articles and layouts to users, groups; customizable for images, ads, multimedia objects; preproduction workflows *Browser client: “Admin” reflects the ability to use a browser to perform administrative functions. “Contributor” reflects the ability to use a browser to access the database remotely and submit stories, but not perform H&J. “H&J” reflects the ability to use a browser to access the database and perform H&J. 14 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: Editorial Systems Smart Connection
Page 11 and 12: Editorial Systems NxEditorial’s X
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?