The below is another discussion begun about Quark in the Graphic Design Resource Group. It was in response to someone expressing surprise at the overwhelming vehemence of Quark-using respondants on my Quark vs. InDesign site. In response to the below I received "My God, Pariah, that was the GREATEST post on Quark vs. InDesign EVER. EXACTLY RIGHT." While I don't know about that, I thought I'd reprint it here for the heck of it. The tongue-in-cheek title is because I couldn't come up with any other.
I've been using QuarkXpress since '89, version 2. My disdain for
Quark, Inc. and the application QuarkXPress have nothing to do with my
recently former employment with, or feelings for,
Adobe. It stems from the way I, as a QuarkXPress user and Quark, Inc. customer,
have been treated by Quark, Inc. for more than a decade.
If you read the comments on those posts on my site?or anywhere around the web?you'll see that my opinions are hardly unique among QuarkXpress users.
I've been a QuarkXpress professional (and trainer) for years. Because of the years I've used the product for work, paying $400 - $900 for new versions only to find that there's nothing new in them, that users' requests and changing needs have been ignored ever since QuarkXpress 3.3 (circa '93), I have a great frustration with using the product. Everyone who uses QuarkXpress, whether she likes it or not, is frustrated by the product's quirks, counter-intuitive user interface, and lack of support for changing technologies and the changing design business. While every other software publisher, including Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe, has learned from the last twenty years of user interface design, Quark, Inc. has flatly ignored it. QuarkXpress is a pain in the neck to use, and a real hurdle to learn. I know; I teach people to use it.
Moreover, Quark, Inc. has refused to change with the needs of its users. Instead Quark, Inc. tries to dictate stagnation in the creative and press industries.
Have you ever dealt with Quark, Inc.'s customer service or technical support? They're notorious as the absolute worst in the computer software/hardware industry. They've been that way for years, despite ample opportunity to improve.
Quark, Inc. even shut down its own user forums because they didn't want potential customers, those on the fence about InDesign and QuarkXpress, reading all the unanswered complaints and bug reports stuffing the forums.
Quark, Inc., steered by its CEO, Fred Ebrahimi, has been a very bad vendor to the creative pro market. Quark, Inc. has been stagnant for years because it didn't have any competition. Nothing improved, nothing changed (QuarkXpress 4.1, released in '95, is virtually identical to QuarkXpress 5, released in '02, and 6, released in '04) regardless of unprecedented feedback from QuarkXpress users. A decade ago Quark, Inc. turned up its nose at the customers, saying, "QuarkXpress is it, there is no competition. QuarkXpress is used the way it is, so why should we invest in changing it?" If there had been any competition to QuarkXpress, users would have flocked to it in droves, leaving Quark, Inc. to fall on its face.
And that's exactly what is happening now. Creatives are running
from Quark, Inc.'s arrogance and its disdain for its customers to the only viable competition available.
Yes, QuarkXpress has a large installed user base that hasn't yet migrated to InDesign. Don't kid yourself. That fact isn't because those users prefer QuarkXpress to InDesign or because they feel loyalty to Quark, Inc.. It's a simple matter of economics: Large shops and workflows are built around QuarkXpress because, for more than ten years, QuarkXpress was the only game in town. Changing those workflows means buying new complimentary software and hardware and retraining personnel. That is an expensive proposition. It's one even the most frugal production manager knows she will have to eventually pay for, but in these tight economic times, many are trying to keep going as long as possible with what they've got.
InDesign is a better program than Quark, Inc., hands down. More importantly, it is a long overdue alternative to QuarkXpress. Finally there is a choice. Even the most recognized Quark, Inc. expert, David Blatner, publically stated that InDesign is years beyond QuarkXpress. Could Quark, Inc. have improved and remained a serious contender? Of course. But instead, Quark, Inc. chose to continue in its arrogance by telling the world customer service and listening to user feedback didn't matter, all that mattered was that the program worked the same way it had for years. It functioned in exactly the same way it did ten years ago, and no one should want any application that does anything more (or better) than QuarkXpress.
Yes, competition inspires improvement and ultimately benefits users. But, a company has to respond to that inspiration and choose to compete for users to benefit. Quark, Inc. has chosen to ignore the competition and therefore not improve.
Would I like to see competition remain in the layout application market? Yes, whole-heartedly. Quark, Inc. only got as good as it did because it began as an upstart competitor to PageMaker. But I also believe in reaping what you sow. Quark, Inc. has stepped on its users and ignored them for so long because users had no other choice but QuarkXpress, that Quark, Inc. has become a real bad guy in the industry. I want to see Quark, Inc. finally realize the consequences of its actions, just like everyone else. It would be good for the market if Quark, Inc. did so, then learned from its mistakes and managed to stay alive to build a better application.
Quark, Inc.'s history of arrogance and its delay in recognizing the threat of InDesign, however, make it unlikely that Quark, Inc. can actually wake up and act in time to save itself. This is much like Adobe and the web: Adobe was late developing web-design applications?particularly with regard to vector graphics and animation for the web. Consequently, Adobe's LiveMotion application and (co-authored) SVG technology were too little too late (I'm still holding out for SVG, though). They didn't stand a chance against Flash because everyone waited too long, giving Macromedia too great a lead in that market. If Quark, Inc. doesn't react profoundly very, very soon, it's going to go the way of LiveMotion.
I don't advocate the demise of Quark, Inc., I predict it. There's a major difference there.
One reader asked: "Do we really want Adobe being the sole producer of the main
graphics programs we use (i.e. Photoshop, Illustator, InDesign)?"
Adobe listens to its customers. Even with Photoshop, a product that has more than 90% market share and no serious competition, Adobe constantly improves the product. Photoshop is king of the hill, and Adobe could become complacent about that like Quark, Inc. did. Adobe, however, is smart enough to know that complacency just invites someone to come along and knock the king off the hill.
But this discussion isn't about Adobe; it's about Quark, Inc. Adobe won't kill Quark, Inc.; Quark, Inc. is the architect of its own downfall and, unless a radical change of direction happens soon, its own demise.
Quark, Inc.'s new CEO, Kamar Aulakh, who took over from Ebrahimi 10 February, 2004, has his work cut out for him. Does Aulakh have the time and sufficient remaining consumer goodwill to spackle all the gushing holes in Quark, Inc.'s dam? I don't know. Ebrahimi did a lot of damage to that dam, and he's still around as Chairman of the Board. What's more, Aulakh isn't new to Quark, Inc. He's been President to Ebrahimi's CEO for eight years; Aulakh has been there, helping Ebrahimi to lead, through all the bad decisions, all the snubbing, all the arrogance. Only time will tell if Aulakh's promotion will in any way alter Quark, Inc.'s spiralling fall toward obscurity.
Incidentally, Freehand held an almost even market share with Illustrator until Macromedia changed its direction and abandoned the print world all together in favor of specializing in online design and production. As people see Freehand's development slipping, they're defecting. That is attributable much more to Macromedia than to Adobe. Just as Adobe's own delay killed LiveMotion. Just as Quark, Inc. dug its own grave; Adobe didn't dig it for Quark, Inc.
Pariah S. Burke is the editor-in-chief of Quark VS InDesign.com, The Authority for News and Opinion on the War Between Desktop Publishing Giants QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign. As a 20 year graphic communications industry veteran, he is also an in-demand desktop publishing and graphic design workflow consultant and software trainer, teaching ad and design agencies, print and pre-press production houses, and government and military agencies in InDesign, Quark, Adobe Creative Suite, InCopy, Photoshop, Illustrator, PageMaker, Acrobat, Variable Data Publishing, and PDF Section 508 Accessibility.
1. Totally agree with much of what Pariah S. Burke says. I've been in graphics using Quark for over 10 years and basically I don't mind my humble version 4.1. It does what I want. I ran Pagemaker in parallel until version 6 when it became so overloaded with useless (to a graphic designer) features that it ran too slowly to be of any use. For an almost identical demise scenario, try using Freehand 8 and then version 10 - 10's so slow the shortcuts can't keep up with an experienced user and I end up waiting for the software to catch up - even on a dual processor 1Ghz machine!
Back to Quark...I decided to upgrade to OSX when Quark 6 came out and duly registered for my upgrade when the form arrived from Quark Europe. In the meantime I used v6 in another studio for a day to see how I got on. If you thought the first v4 was buggy, then v6 was on another planet. I think I managed a 4 page leaflet in 2 days (usually takes a couple of hours) - with the constant crashes and persistant 'file already open' messages every other save, it was a complete nightmare. Why Quark have decided that we want to design web sites with Xpress is beyond me (I'm waiting to see if Dreamweaver adds a DTP function!) - a bit of time spent actually making sure the app performed its basic functions would have been welcome!
All I want, and I know this isn't perhaps the best way forwards, is Quark 4.1 for OSX. In other words - a fairly stable and useable version of Quark which works with Panther. Once that's in place (and talking to v6.1 users its isn't right yet), let's move on from there.
If my printer/repro house used InDesign, I'd migrate tomorrow as would I guess 99% of Quark's user base. How about a 'crossgrade' from Adobe to lessen the blow a little?
Posted at 6:10AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jon Sephton