July 29, 2014 Last Updated 3:07 pm

Bonnier to migrate their U.S. magazine apps to the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite

Swedish publisher’s U.S. titles include Popular Science, Saveur and Outdoor Life, and have been using the Mag+ platform, created by Bonnier in 2009-10, for its digital editions

The magazine publishing house Bonnier will soon be launching new apps for their U.S. magazines as they begin publishing using the Adobe Digital Publishing Suite. Bonnier publishes such titles as Popular Science, Saveur, Popular Photography and Field & Stream.

Bonnier was among the first magazine companies to launch an app for a magazine title into the Apple App Store with its release of the app for Popular Science – available from the first day the iPad was shipped. The magazine’s most recent publisher’s statement shows that its app, called Popular Science+, has over 57,000 subscribers (out of a total circulation of around 1.3 million).



First PopSci iPad edition from April 2010


That app, and others launched by Bonnier, use the Mag+ platform – a platform that Bonnier itself created during the weeks and months before the iPad was launched.

The new change of platforms appears to only involve Bonnier’s U.S. properties. PopSci will probably be among the last to migrate to Adobe DPS, with Field & Stream and Outdoor Life among the first.

“We are very excited that Bonnier Corporation has begun the process of publishing their apps using DPS,” Lynly Schambers, Group Product Marketing Manager, Digital Publishing at Adobe Systems, said.

“What we heard loud and clear from Bonnier is that they were looking for a digital publishing platform that tightly integrated with Adobe InDesign, made it very easy to publish across multiple platforms, included built-in consumer marketing tools and provided the flexibility to integrate with back end entitlement systems. DPS does this. We are thrilled to have them as a publishing partner and look forward to supporting the migration of all their titles to DPS.”

The move from one platform to another will require quite a bit of work, and may even require the launch of completely new apps. (TNM has reached out to both the group publisher and editor of PopSci for more information, but has not heard back over two days.)

Other magazines have opted to launch new apps for the archives of the magazines, while others have launched new apps and let the old apps remain in the app stores. Still others have issued an app update which require readers to download the old issues again, or even lose them altogether. How this transition takes place often determine whether reads accept the app changes.

But both publishing platforms involved are based off of Adobe InDesign, so the look and feel of the digital magazines should not be too different.

  • Tablazines 4 years ago

    …and they didn’t understand why you choose Adobe when publishing YOUR magazine.

    • D.B. Hebbard 4 years ago

      To be fair, we chose the Adobe Single Edition solution because 1) it’s free; and 2) we felt it was politically neutral.

      We would have loved to have used a platform’s solution (for free) that could have offered us a Newsstand app that was also native to the iPad (because of the interactivity in the Guide to Digital Publishing Platforms). But no one did.

      (I think Konstantinos, who designed the digital magazine issue, was particularly interested in FutureFolio at the time.)

  • Fred Walters 4 years ago

    Bonnier owns digital edition platform Mag+. This doesn’t exactly speak to their confidence in that product . . . and should I launch my magazine’s digital edition with Mag+?

  • Tony Redhead 4 years ago

    Rather than dumping Mag+ I think it was more a consolidation to a platform on which they had already developed and published a number of titles. Adobe is a standard and has been a standard for a long time through it’s breadth and depth of digital publishing and allied software product. The leverage it can bring to bear inside corporations is huge and it can offer many many incentives to use their platform.

    I’m familiar with Adobe DPS, Mag+ and Oomph and I find each offer different publishing options. As a small publisher I’ll select the platform that addresses the brief from my clients and moving from one framework to another is simply a matter of learning each one. This ability to switch from one to another is much harder in a corporation with so many titles such as Bonnier publish and I’m sure there were other criteria applied to the decision to publish solely on DPS aside from the functionality or development platform offered by DPS.

    Personally I want to see diversity in the market as it offers me choices. Adobe DPS delivers a great front end experience with basic functionality, Mag+ has a excellent Android platform with an interesting A/B layer interaction and Oomph excels with a wide range of functionality with a focus on the iPad/iPhone market.