PDA

View Full Version : Quark's challenge to Adobe


MacBytes
Nov 3, 2004, 09:26 PM
Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Quark\'s challenge to Adobe (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041103222646)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

idkew
Nov 3, 2004, 10:20 PM
ha! quark you are dead, except for dinosaurs afraid of change.

transparency in 7.0? 7.0 is expected when? 2015?

by then ID will have taken all your user base b/c all the quark users will have retired.

mangoman
Nov 3, 2004, 10:31 PM
Quark... what a pathetic bunch. I'm watching my company of 150 plus creatives move to InDesign CS.

Bye Quark! Sucka!

Peyote
Nov 4, 2004, 01:28 AM
Is Quark honestly comparing Xpress to Photoshop?

there's a difference: Quark sucked and had a monopoly with Xpress. Photoshop is great, and has a monopoly.

Quark never got it together with Xpress and now people have a choice. What makes Quark think that they can challenge a nice application like Pshop?

What makes Quark think their dinky extension will be competative with Photoshop? Maybe it's fine for the basic tasks...but what designer is going to choose to not buy Photoshop, and rely on a QUARK Xpress extension with limited capability, when they can practically buy the whole Adobe Creative Suite for close to what Quark costs all by itself?

tards.

tech4all
Nov 4, 2004, 01:42 AM
Yea Quark XPress is going down in contrast to InDesign. But why would they consider Photoshop to be a rival to Quark? I mean Quark is for layout and Photoshop is for image manip. Anywho, they say that 7.0 will suppport, well InDesigns already there. I actually heard that PC Magazine was switching to InDesign from a person at my college. I used to use Quark on a PC ( :o ), but when I got my Mac I got CS and InDesign is really nice, especially since you use .ai and .psd files instead of just .tiff and .eps. Really handy. Only thing I don't like about InDesign is the colors. Compared to other Adobe apps, like Illustrator, the equilivulant color in InDesign is always a bit off, like more "pastelish" or something; but if you export as a PDF and print via Acrobat the color OK :)

neilrobinson
Nov 4, 2004, 04:44 AM
as a digital printer (large format) i use quark, indesign, corel draw ect.

i still love quark 6.1, but it does have its limits, i am not totally happy with indesign, i think it is mostly because i am not use to it. indesign is going to take over quark, price, ease of use, ect.

One major issue with ndesign in my workflow is drop shadows, transparecies ect, when you use pms colours near them you get a colour shift (where indesign has rasterized the drop shadow area (theirfor CMYK) and then left the rest as pantone.

i am slowly moving to indesign and think quark will be No 2 on the list. unless quark get their act together real quick (and fix quark 6.5)

wordmunger
Nov 4, 2004, 07:18 AM
I think I see their strategy here. Rather than buy Indesign and Photoshop for $1350, they're suggesting you can buy Quark with its QuarkVista extension for $850. Most text-layout people don't spend much time with Photoshop. They mainly need to resize, produce color seps, and make minor edits. For anything more serious, they're going to outsource -- probably to someone who doesn't own anything but Photoshop. So, if they can save $500 and continue to use the program they're familiar with, it's a good deal for them. What Quark is competing with here is casual Photoshop users who still need "professional" features like 4-color seps and spot colors.

Not a bad idea, but I suppose time will tell whether they screw this one up.

Thirteenva
Nov 4, 2004, 07:30 AM
I think many people are missing some of the points entirely, re-read the article.

Quark is positioning express to supply their customers with image editing features, eliminating their need for photoshop. Hence the comment that their userbase typically uses only 15% of Photoshop's features. If they add that 15% functinality to quark people will be inclined to use 1program (xpress) to do what they typically did with two (indesing or quark along with photoshop).


Second, I agree that quark has dropped the ball, and i switched to ID years ago. However many places are still standardized on it. What did hurt quark was that most early OS X migrators jumped to indesign. Quark is still in a powerful position to compete, saying they are 'dead' is just naive.

Third, don't expect a direct photoshop competitor from quark. Like i stated above, expect them to add more image editing features to express that will appeal to their user base and feed the notion that they can do with one app what they were doing with two. Someone above asked why they perceive photoshop as a rival to quark. And the answer is.... THEY DON'T... they perceive Adobe as a rival and by adding image editing features to quark they may win back some indesign users that only need limited image editing features and not the plethora of tools and options of Photoshop.

Peyote
Nov 4, 2004, 09:03 AM
...they perceive Adobe as a rival and by adding image editing features to quark they may win back some indesign users that only need limited image editing features and not the plethora of tools and options of Photoshop.


I don't think this market exists. The only people that are going to buy Quark and not buy Photoshop, are people that don't really need Photoshop...but I don't think there are really any people out there that need Quark but don't need Photoshop. So if you need Photoshop and Quark, you probably also need Illustrator. So Why would anyone buy Quark, then buy Photoshop, then buy Illustrator? They won't...they'd either buy Quark and Creative Suite, which doesn't take any market share from InDesign, or just the Creative suite by itself. I just don't see the value in adding Photoshop features to Quark in the hopes that people won't buy Photoshop. If you are a business and have to make a purchase as big a Quark, you obviously have a need for all the other graphic design/DTP tools.

wordmunger
Nov 4, 2004, 09:31 AM
I don't think this market exists. The only people that are going to buy Quark and not buy Photoshop, are people that don't really need Photoshop...but I don't think there are really any people out there that need Quark but don't need Photoshop. So if you need Photoshop and Quark, you probably also need Illustrator. So Why would anyone buy Quark, then buy Photoshop, then buy Illustrator? They won't...they'd either buy Quark and Creative Suite, which doesn't take any market share from InDesign, or just the Creative suite by itself. I just don't see the value in adding Photoshop features to Quark in the hopes that people won't buy Photoshop. If you are a business and have to make a purchase as big a Quark, you obviously have a need for all the other graphic design/DTP tools.
If your production cycle already involves Quark, then the addition of QuarkVista would allow you to drop Photoshop from some of your workstations, saving you on upgrade costs. Quark + Illustrator is still going to cost less than Quark plus Creative Suite, so if Quark is a given, then adding a Photoshop-competitor to Quark does add value.

If you're thinking about migrating to Indesign, then Creative Suite is cheaper, but there are other costs involved in moving to a new document layout platform.

Peyote
Nov 4, 2004, 09:51 AM
If your production cycle already involves Quark, then the addition of QuarkVista would allow you to drop Photoshop from some of your workstations, saving you on upgrade costs. Quark + Illustrator is still going to cost less than Quark plus Creative Suite, so if Quark is a given, then adding a Photoshop-competitor to Quark does add value.

If you're thinking about migrating to Indesign, then Creative Suite is cheaper, but there are other costs involved in moving to a new document layout platform.


True, but migrating to Indesign isn't the only reason to buy CS. For one, added features, and for two, keeping up with software updates.

I can see this having some added value, but I think from a standpoint of functionality and practicality, I don't think anyone is going to buy Quark 7 and not buy CS. If you do, what happens if you end up needing Photoshop at one of those workstations where you've only installed Xpress and Illustrator? Productivity is lost when you have to change computers to work in Photoshop, or have someone else stop what their doing to work on your image. I think most businesses will buy both CS and Xpress, or CS alone. I don't think a agency or studio or whatever is going to take the chance that it all works out when they only install Photoshop on certain computers.

Belly-laughs
Nov 4, 2004, 10:17 AM
…Only thing I don't like about InDesign is the colors. Compared to other Adobe apps, like Illustrator, the equilivulant color in InDesign is always a bit off, like more "pastelish" or something; but if you export as a PDF and print via Acrobat the color OK :)

If you use the same colour management setting throughout CS apps colour should appear the exact same.

wordmunger
Nov 4, 2004, 10:21 AM
True, but migrating to Indesign isn't the only reason to buy CS. For one, added features, and for two, keeping up with software updates.

I can see this having some added value, but I think from a standpoint of functionality and practicality, I don't think anyone is going to buy Quark 7 and not buy CS. If you do, what happens if you end up needing Photoshop at one of those workstations where you've only installed Xpress and Illustrator? Productivity is lost when you have to change computers to work in Photoshop, or have someone else stop what their doing to work on your image. I think most businesses will buy both CS and Xpress, or CS alone. I don't think a agency or studio or whatever is going to take the chance that it all works out when they only install Photoshop on certain computers.
I think you and I come from different environments. I come from book production environment, where layout, design, and illustration are completely different functions. A layout person might only need Illustrator to change a single spot color. Ditto with Photoshop. Designers would probably need all three apps, and illustrators would only need CS. So, a stripped-down Photoshop would make a lot of sense for a layout person. The layout person's workstation would NEVER be used by an illustrator (the person, not the software). In fact, a stripped-down Illustrator might also be useful as a Quark Xtension.

I suspect the divisions are similar in newspapers and (to a lesser extent) magazines.

However, if you work in a design shop, then Quark doesn't make much sense (unless you're designing newspapers, books, or magazines): you want an integrated suite of apps that give you complete control over your design.

Blue Velvet
Nov 4, 2004, 12:31 PM
As a designer who has to handle everything from books, posters, leaflets, display stuff... I can say absolutely, unequivocally that we will be purchasing Quark 7... AND any CS upgrades.

Although we're disappointed (but not surprised) with the Quark 6.5 upgrade, it appears to have fixed a small number of fundamental problems.

The Vista Xtension is clunky & slow on a 1.25 dual G4. I can't see us using it in place of Photoshop (frankly, I don't trust it). We haven't installed 6.5 yet on our 3 main production 2.5 G5s because of other issues...

It is likely that Quark will offer a discount for a short time upon release of ver 7. We will purchase it then and install it much later once the first or second updaters are released...

In the meantime, we are planning on an InDesign transition, but as well as taking time out for training & template conversion, we must also take our freelancers, temps & main print suppliers into account -- the majority of who are still running Quark 4 or 5 on OS9. For that reason, we still have Quark 5 running as classic installations so we can save down to ver 4 qxds...

There's no need for me to justify any upgrade to Creative Suite. It is a superb set of tools -- not perfect, by any means. But the fact that our organisation (a charity) gets educational pricing makes it a no-brainer.

superninjagoat
Nov 4, 2004, 12:42 PM
I think you and I come from different environments. I come from book production environment, where layout, design, and illustration are completely different functions. A layout person might only need Illustrator to change a single spot color. Ditto with Photoshop. Designers would probably need all three apps, and illustrators would only need CS. So, a stripped-down Photoshop would make a lot of sense for a layout person. The layout person's workstation would NEVER be used by an illustrator (the person, not the software). In fact, a stripped-down Illustrator might also be useful as a Quark Xtension.

I suspect the divisions are similar in newspapers and (to a lesser extent) magazines.

However, if you work in a design shop, then Quark doesn't make much sense (unless you're designing newspapers, books, or magazines): you want an integrated suite of apps that give you complete control over your design.

I'm a newspaper man, and this is great news. Even if InDesign is better in many ways (and it is -- I use it for freelance work a lot.) it is still slower for basic page-layout. And it's very hard to switch when our network and software are in many ways built around Quark software. Production glitches are unacceptable in the newspaper business.

XPress's inclusion of the photo plugin will benefit small and medium papers without dedicated photo techs where page designers have to do basic toning and cropping of images. c.n.goat

Blue Velvet
Nov 4, 2004, 02:36 PM
Here's an interesting interview with the Quark CEO:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/22119.html?cprose=5-44

All good stuff, but the proof is in the pudding.

6.5 is undercooked, IMHO and as for that baloney about .psd imports as a native feature... well, it's not due as an Xtension until next year.

With all the time they've had on it and not to improve screen font-quality at 100%... sigh.

tYNS
Nov 5, 2004, 05:09 PM
Well.. instead of release version 7... Why not fix Version 6.x first.

This is ridiculos I have yet to use 6 because it suffers from severe problems printing separation to a platemaker we have...

I just upgraded to 6.5 and continue not to be able to use it as it crashes unexpectedly all the time now.. this used to happen in 4 all the time because not enough memory was assigned to the application..

but now I have no control over memory asssignment as OS X handles this..

What is going on... I am seriously thinking about asking about having our monies refunded for this program. It is not useable. I'll be damned if we are paying even more to get Quark 7..

We have switched to InDesign, but we suffer with the fact our older documents are created in quark.

I guess we will have to indure the switch just liek we did with OS X .. in the end it was worth it.