Never before have I witnessed a company so creatively advertising the superiority of a product or company as I have Quark, Inc.‘s efforts toward promoting InDesign and Adobe.
Publishing professionals who attended a Quark-convened ‘executive summary’ in New York last week are still abuzz over the performance of Quark CEO Fred Ebrahimi… [who] told his squirming guests that ‘the Macintosh platform is shrinking,’ and that ‘publishing is dying.’ He suggested that anyone dissatisfied with Quark’s Mac commitment should ‘switch to something else,’ although he insisted that making the move to Adobe’s long-Carbonized InDesign package is ‘committing suicide.’ ‘Everyone was stunned, and most folks left by noon,’ one attendee reported. ‘It was awful,’ ” reports MacEdition.
And then today this…
Wired News: Vaporware 2002: Tech up in Smoke?:
QuarkXPress for Macintosh OS X: Quark’s page-layout system, QuarkXPress, is probably the most eagerly anticipated application awaiting conversion to Apple’s new operating system, Mac OS X. Wisely, Quark hasn’t committed to a release date, but, as readers noted, the OS X version has seemed just around the corner for the last couple of years. Clearly, many graphics enthusiasts thought it would appear in 2002. Alas, it did not.
“Quark, which has given new meaning to the term ‘customer-hostile,’ is now damaging Apple with their way, way, way overdue Mac OS X‑native version of QuarkXPress,” wrote Michael Stango. “Their ineptitude at keeping up with the pace of change in the Mac market is doing more to sell copies of Adobe InDesign than anyone in Adobe’s marketing department.”
What follows is my opinion based solely on my decade and a half experience in the design and advertising industries.
Quark (the industry leading page layout program from 1992–2001) is now more famous–infamous?–than it has ever been. For over a decade it was the defacto standard for layout and publication. Virtually every major and minor magazine relied on QuarkXPress (colloquially just “Quark” since they make only one noteworthy product) to product its publications, as did newspapers, advertising agencies, design firms, service bureaus, and virtually anyone else for whom PageMaker was not enough power. Quark was the industry standard, much like Photoshop is the unchallended industry standard for professional-grade imaging and photo manipulation. You wanted to create print layouts, you learned Quark. Period.
They all hate Quark, even the people who love it. It’s clunky and inefficient, and Quark, Inc. treats its customers like dirt.
In the early Nineties Quark took over the above major markets from then Aldus PageMaker. PageMaker, though easier to use and far superior in a few key features, was, overall, not up to the power and featureset of Quark. Eventually PageMaker, like the majority of Aldus, was acquired by Adobe Systems, Inc.. Try as they might, Adobe could not position PageMaker to take back Quark’s market dominance. It was a losing battle that Adobe waged for about eight years. Eventually, they came up with a better plan.
Adobe InDesign was built from the ground up by Adobe. It is the product of Adobe’s decades of experience building for, and, in large part, defining the design industries. They talked to layout artists and production directors, ad agencies and service bureaus, magazines and newspapers. They asked: What do you want? Then Adobe answered those requests in the form of InDesign.
When InDesign 2.0 was released January 2002 it was immediately hailed as the “Quark Killer.” And it is the Quark Killer.
Quark, Inc. fell victim to the same thing that crippled Aldus PageMaker and put Quark on top: Complacency. Very little has changed in Quark since version 3 way back in 1992(ish). They fix a few bugs, add a small feature or two, with each release, but they don’t make any major improvements.
So Quark has stagnated. Then InDesign comes along with a superior feature set, incredibly better user interface, greater (real) integration with other staples of a designer’s toolbox Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat. Another thing InDesign has that Quark doesn’t is, well, Technical Support and Customer Service agents who don’t schwing customers. I’ve heard–and experienced myself on a couple of occassions–some genuinely terrible service from Quark reps.
All on its own, InDesign will kill Quark. The pendulum has already swung in a group of industries that can’t afford to swing back and forth.
The outcome is inevitable, but Quark’s tireless efforts in support of InDesign’s growing market dominance is truly admirable. Never before have I witnessed a company so creatively advertising the superiority of a product or company as I have Quark, Inc.‘s efforts toward promoting InDesign and Adobe.
Quark, I applaud you. Bravo! Bravo!
This is a favorite topic of mine, so watch this column for more True Life Tales of Quark-Foolery!
Quark has a lot of inertia behind it. Don’t underestimate that. That’s is what made the Y2K bug so much of an issue–companies resisted change for as long as possible.
That, added with InDesign’s significant issues with printing (which is vital to the *printing* industry) is going to make it an uphill fight at best.
Have used Quark several times (we have it in the office) but I have used PageMaker since the beginning, and I can do everything with it, no matter what I ask of it. I know I’ll eventualy convert to InDesign.
I find Quark awkward and ugly and clunky. Going over to Quark was NEVER an option.
Have used Quark several times (we have it in the office) but I have used PageMaker since the beginning, and I can do everything with it, no matter what I ask of it. I know I’ll eventualy convert to InDesign.
I find Quark awkward and ugly and clunky. Going over to Quark was NEVER an option.
Those of who have (and do) work with Quark will agree with you: Quark is awkward, ugly, and clunky. InDesign is simply powerful, beautiful, and elegant.
You know, I’m one of those designers who hates Quark Xpress but uses it daily. I have hundreds of past files built in Quark which, unless I wish to start a project over because of a small change, keep me coming back. I can only say that I love and hate Quark. I purchased InDesign 2.0 and would love to try it but I’m too busy to give it a proper test run. Then I saw that Adobe was offering a tutorial CD to anyone purchasing InDesign. Brilliant! I called Adobe up and told them of my dilemma: I’ve purchased InDesign but can’t take the time to learn it. Would they please send me the tutorial CD which they were giving away with new purchases. Now, I knew I purchased a couple of months prior to the ‘tutorial’ offer but thought they would jump at the chance to help a customer make the switch from Quark to InDesign. I was wrong. I was told that I hadn’t purchased at the proper time to qualify for the tutorial offer. I explained that I wanted to switch if only I could minimize the learning curve with the tutorial. The answer remained ‘no.’ After spending all the money I did on InDesign, I am stuck using Quark and muttering under my breath. Not because I hate Quark so much, but because Adobe has no interest in helping me make the switch. InDesign 2.0 remains in an unopened box and will remain that way. Adobe could have a loyal customer who regularly purchases upgrades but instead refused to help me switch over by offering me a CD which was given with InDesign only 2 months after I purchased. I think Adobe is doing a pretty impressive job of supporting Quark right back.
Do you use Photoshop, Illustrator, and/or Acrobat? If you buy Adobe’s Creative Suite you’ll get not only upgrades to those products and to InDesign, but some really good Total Training videos in the box.
Marv, I don’t get it… You spend all this time calling Adobe and fighting for a free CD, then you get on a website and complain about not getting a free cd that you thought you were owed, and yet you claim that InDesign still sits in an unopened boc because you heven’t got the time. You say Adobe could have a loyal customer if they would only give you a free CD. That’s petty man. Maybe you should have spent all your phone and posting time opening up the box and trying InDesign instead of whining about not getting a free CD. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to use InDesign, which took me no time to layout my book, cover and all amd laugh at those who won’t give it the time of day for a lame reason such as a free CD. The learning curve with InDesign, especially if you know layout already, is nearly flat, that fact tat you haven’t opened the box indicates your intentions of not wanting to switch because if you truly had the intention to do so, you would have done it already. Just my opinion, Baxter
Quark Xpress sucks because you can no longer charge someone $900.00 to place text or pictures in a box and then make them spend hundreds more on Xtensions for simple tasks such as imposition. The only useful (and recent) addition to Quark since 1993 is the ability to collect fonts under the Collect for Output dialog. And they even screwed that one up – you actually have to tell Quark to collect both printer AND screen fonts!
LOL
Sorry jus my input, Im no expert or anything, im 19 years old, and have used Quark for about a year (two school semesters) its awful, i sat down with indesign and was able to make packaging for some sea shells in about two hours…like i say im no expert or anythin, but if i 19 year old with about 30 weeks of desktop publishing under his belt can learn how to use indesign (yes my work has gone to print) in a matter of hours, i think anyone who has been doing it professionally for years should have no problem…
Thanks for sharing your experience, Jay.
Like anything else, Quark or InDesign is a matter of preference. Overwhelmingly, though, most of us prefer InDesign.
If you’re planning on a career in design, do learn Quark as well as InDesign. Quark won’t fade away completely for a few years yet.
well its really funny how i got into this stuff, i got into a school for the sound class (i do my own recording) but in it all i saw all this photoshop and digital imaging stuff and i thought it was really neat so i started playing with it and here i am now
Interesting. Are you still in the sound class, or have you completely switched majors?
Yes, I too loved Q, but I have left my roots for a new love: InD.
I teach design courses and for many years touted Q, but when we migrated to OSX last January (03) I had no choice, I had to convert all my tutorials and files over to InD. Not a problem!
I witnessed the love fest up in Cuptertino between Steve‑O and Freddie (no love lost there), but they hugged and made up and Fred showed off his new baby (Q‑6).
I was not impressed. I can work in both (with my eyes closed) but I love InD.
Well actully its all part of the same major, its part of a degree in digital imaging and communication, so we learn everything from web, to print, to sound, video, and 3d animation…its a lot of fun, so print part kind of found its way in and i liked it, still do, but my love is still sound.
Well over here in Malaysia, we are swithing to ADOBE INDESIGN CS. It’s git some great features but I still love Quark (5/6) They have fixed some issues in Quark 6 like PDF Importing with a patch and an updater.
Quark 6 only has problems in OS X if your dprinter drivers are not updated. I have been using Quark for 8 years now and love its stability. A lot of people that complain about Quark don’t realise that most of the time the software fails due to their own misundertanding of the Mac environment.
All this said Quark are jumping on the grenade just to DIEEEEEE!@!… So the future looks to be Adobe’s… Quark deserves a fitting epitaph, Here lies a Software that handled a decade of publishing but has fallen because of Idiots at the helm. Amen
Yep–Quark Ugly/ inDesign Pretty :) I work in a 2‑designer office–my coworker works 100% Mac+ Quark and i work 80% PC W/ Indd–today i had to work on Quark–Urgh!!! 5 or more click to do something INDD does in 1–2. And where’s all my preset keyboard shortcuts and my handy pallates where i want them? Waaah–i want my Adobe back!! i still wonder whats so express about dear old quark?
Quark to me is like your old grandma–familiar and you wouldnt get rid of it for anything, but just when you’re sitting with “Grandma” the door rings and theres your cute new girlfriend called INDESIGN and it’s “Bye Grandma–see you in a few weeks”
:)
just my 2 cents worth.…
LOL Interesting methaphor, Alex. Thanks for the laugh!
Good luck with Quark–or with convincing the other designer to switch.
Pingback: Alex Singleton
I began on Quark “back in the day” (v2 on a Mac) , then used Pagemaker on a PC for a few years, then back to Mac for Quark for 4 years, then PC Quark for 2 years, now my new company (Mac Quark) is switching to InDesign CS.
They all have shortcuts, they all do somethings better than others, but they all prettty much do all things. I still love Quark , if I had to pick, but really they’re all tools. If you’re passionate about design, don’t EVER put all your eggs in one basket. InDesign’s kickin butt, now, but Quark could pull it’s head out, do an IPO, and fire the head, eventually climbing back on top. Or something new could come along. Then there’s Publisher (just kidding).
Viva Le Design!
Well, Michael H., if you wait for Quark “to pull it’s head out…” and I’ll finish that with “…of it’s own ass.” you’ll be dead before it happens. Our publications department of about 40 people switched to InDesign. Half did it with the intro of InDs 2.0 the rest bit the bullet with the Creative Suite.
Though complaints here to switch From QK to ID, were numerous (some angry and upset) when I announced it was going to happen, I could see into the future well enough not to change my mind). However, switchers did not say InDesign was difficult to use and NOT ONE has said they wish they had Quark back. (The only help I provided, was purchasing DVD’s from “Total Training” for the extra timid. Which some opted not to watch– they just fudged around in InDesign and learned it.)
They have thanked me for forcing them switch. Interestingly, some of the most greateful now, were the most stubborn Quark supporters before.
In addition, using the entire Creative Suite has simplified their job demands. The similarities and seamlessness of the appllications from concept to completion, (be it press, PDF, or web), is a faster, smoother process.
As the “Nike” shoes once said “Just do it!”
Quark was horrible to work with, esp. from an IT point of view, and unsupportive of clients. When Quark dies, and it will, I’ll be there with my shovel full of dirt for the grave. You can bet on it.
Pattii has a good point here. Moreover she gives a certain form and shape to something additional that Quark has to work against now: InDesign’s momentum.
This momentum, as I see it, has two important parts.
The first is the buzz, the talk that’s powering that momentum. There are a lot of frustrated long-time Quark users who have made the cost/benefit analysis and, as evidenced by the number of big publishing names (notable amongst them the BBC and Playboy magazine) the thought of converting workflows over to the competition is nowhere near as unthinkable as it once was (nobody went from Quark to PageMaker after Adobe bought it and improved it).
The second is that, for those who have switched, they now have a monetary interest in making it work. I’m certainly no businessman (at least not yet), but it seems common sense that, even at the CS’s lower price and good value for the dollar, converting a publishing house over to it from Quark is, in three words, ex-pense-ive. Not only will the prudent executive keep the shift in place for at least long enough to justify the expense. Not just that, but it behooves whatever management who lead the drive for the change and made the decision to make it work. It seems save to presume that in some cases, someone’s job may be hanging on it.
Pariah has said that the next round of releases, Xpress 7 and CS2, could decide it either way. I, in the main, agree. But I wouldn’t expect those who’ve switched over to go running back to Quark, at least not right away; they went thought a lot in time and effort to switch to a new workflow, and the onus will be to make that pay off.
And, when a poster talks of former XPress partisans who are now enthusiastic CS users, makes statements with good points about CS’s usablility and smooth integration, and says, straight out, that when Quark dies she will “be there with my shovel full of dirt for the grave”, then it seems to me that even if Quark has a quantum leap and reinvents the wheel, it will *still* have its work cut out for it.
It’s tough to beat mindshare like that. Quark may have friendlied-up its policies and is rediscovering innovation, but CS has stolen momentum.
Ok, let look at it like this. Productivity. That is what will make or break a company. Now, Adobe is giving CS as a suite which IT people are thankful of (One serial number, cheaper costs easier upgrade paths) which offsets the costs of Modular software thinking. Here are the facts.
(1) Indesign is cheaper overall for publishing houses to purchase versus buying PS, ILL, ACR, then QUARK serperatlely or buying CS2. (2)Faster to install 1 Suite then individual packages and easier for IT staff to support and maintain due to 1 serial number 1 set of discs 1 box.
(3) Easier workflow with CS2 than trying to USE Qack (yesI speeled it like that, like a lame duck, like their ugly GUI). Such as shortcuts, interface (GUI), Version Cue and Bridge. You get the picture.
(4) By workers using PS, ILL, ACR, they get use to 1 user interface, figuring out Qacks lame excuse for a GUI takes away from productivity. Face it. Look at the print Dialog box if this is hard to grasp. If you are paying 40 designers to browse through a clunky interface, in 1 year’s time you would have offset the cost of switching over in wasted labor and uneeded mouse clicks.
(5) One company, One customer support, easier compatibility.
(6) Qack is very slow in the bug fix realm and slower than a snail’s pace at developing upgrades. Face it they sit around sucking what they can off the “Goold Old Days”. So staying with the times and the newest tech and trends is something Qack is NOT known for doing.
(7) Adobe bought Macromedia. So now you have Printdesign/Webdesign workflows. What is Qack gonna do? Come out with an Xtension that cost too damn much and doesn’t do enough? Or tell you that Web design is just a trend and is on the way out?
(8) Eight Track players were the most advanced at one time and it took a while for consumers and vendors to switch. Now find me an eight track player.
Qack is the 8 track. Adobe is the CD.
(9) Qark stable? Yeah uh huh and a postscript error is something Qack users never see. Adobe invented postscript. I think they know how it works just a little bit better than what Qack assumes it is supposed to be.
(10) The GUI. Oh how Qack inspires the masses in design just by looking at the most ugly and stupid GUI I have ever seen on any program. Also that GUI hasn’t had a major overhall since conception. Its about as ugly as a wheelbarrow full of frog crap coated in asbestos and lye. Drop the 8track, burn the leisure suit, and remember, Microsoft has even upgraded their GUI more often than Qack. I see freeeware with more elegant GUI’s than this. YOu want me to pay this much foir something this ugly? YUCK. It’s in efficent, clunky, confusing, and downright butt ass ugly. It depresses people which cuts down on their productivity which doesn’t make the company they work for money.
You really want to know the truth.…Look at the best designs, the latest and the greatest and you will see Adobe’s name all over it. Qack on the other hand can’t even get a decent website design. It’s even ugly but more up to date than the poor excuse for a GUI they have on their product.
LOL Those that still use QACK listen closely. Ever heard of the Dinosaur? Who gets hired now a days for using Compugraphic Typesetters? Better learn IND because Qack is in it’s death throes. That ship is sinking and everyone knows it. The question is how long before it slides completely under the surface?
Oh and to the guy who is too busy to open the box and Learn IND.
If I was your boss you would have already been Fired.
You would have sounded better if you clamied your dog ate the box.
Keep up with the times or you get left behind and in this corporate day and age of streamlinging and trimming the fat you bettter have something to offer the workforce besides excuses.
LOL
Pingback: The Donegal Express » And pretty soon, I’ll make assistant manager, and that’s when the big bucks start rolling in. –Maurice
Yes, it’s easy to beat on Quark for some of the comments of previous management, but Quark now helps to keep Adobe honest. Talk about monopolies, without Quark, what creative area wouldn’t Adobe own? InDesign users, whatever you think of Quark or QuarkXPress, if it goes Adobe can do whatever they like.… Now that is scary!
Hey all! I’ve worked for about 10 years designing for print (mostly stationery, mailers, etc), and when I got involved in publishing, I cut my teeth on Indesign 1.5: what a pleasure! Each successive version brings more fluidity and elegance to the workflow. A while back, I was forced to use Pagemaker for a customer’s layout… “Michael H” says “they’ve all got shortcuts”, but for those of us humanoids born with only 2 hands, “Shift+Alt+F7”… – give me a flippin break! At another time, when our bureau merged with another office, I tried learning Quark 5 (more like, Quark zealots tried to force it, Anaconda-style, down my throat). What a crock! Painfully complicated and meticulous ways of performing simple tasks… blergh. Quark is kind of like a benign mole – it’s less painful and less of a hassle just to leave it alone… this is why companies don’t do themselves a BIG favour and upgrade (YES, UPGRADE) to InDesign. Which brings me to a related rant: Macromedia Freehand (and Fireworks, for that matter) should also “jump on the grenade just to DIEEEEEE!” (thanks Pravin for this gem)