Quark Vs InDesign: The Catalog POV
Brief overview of the war offers interesting insights
The website Multchannel Merchant has today published an article on the continuting commercial shakeout between QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign amongst catalog publishers. The insights are intriguing not so much because they are substantially different but because they come from such a spcialized branch of the design world.
Different demands, Same Concerns
One might think that, when speaking catalog design and production issues, the demands of catalog production would be slightly different, but not so much.
Pro-InDesigners cite ease of use and powerful new feaatures (including the use of the eyedropper tool to convert an image to CMYK, something Eric Graffam, art director for Portland-based Cuddledown of Maine, pointed out: “You could never do this in Quark” the article quotes him as saying. InDesign’s faciility with PDFs also seems to rate high.
Coming from the Quark direction the driving force to stay with XPress seems to be, as always, the percieved difficulty of switching from one paradigm to the other, and the hard-to-argue-with benefits of staying with a an already-proven tool that works for the individual enterprise.
By and large this seems to reflect at least one of the dialog streams that tend to happen whenever discussions of moving from one to the other are taken up.
The Future of Quark?
Where XPress takes Quark, Inc after the debut of version 7 is anyone’s guess at this point. A particularly incisive view is taken by Russell Viers, owner of computer training firm Digiversity, who is quoted by the article as saying that “Quark may be forced to regrow its business based on the remaining Quark 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 customers who want to upgrade”, suggesting that the market-share erosion suffered by Quark in the days since InDesign became a serious competitor may be a larger obstacle to overcome than some might have guessed.