The purpose of quark is not design, it is layout and output. Yes you can call 'layout' as design, we all bill it in that way when we need to. The bottom line is that Quark offers control over printing, be it to a press via, PDF, film, DTR, laser or some sort of proofer. In a high output and or demanding workflow there is nothing one needs more than control. Printing presses are not all generic self calibrating things. Most of the operational presses today still rely on a pressman for most of the 'work'. ICC profiles and the like just don't match the control you have in Quark. If you print mostly to photo copiers, inkjet or down and dirty discount printers, it's simply garbage in garbage out. So have at it with 'Rage Maker' or Publisher. InDesign is valid for people who don't know printing very well, work in a closed loop system or can't afford Quark. I would bet that a good lot of the InDesign PDF's are still placed inside Quark prior to final output. Especially considering the over-all loss of output control faced when switching to OSX. Adobe, and most software/harware vendors, seem to be making it harder and harder for professional level control of color. That's not bad for the home user; heck I'd love to be able to toss something in the scanner and have it print on a press at 200% looking better than the original. I can do that on my Mother's system with the press of one button. (amazing) The truth is that is years away in the commercial printing world.
When inkjet web presses make it main stream at offset speeds, we'll see each signature customizable, more automatic 'eye pleasing' color control, and less need for Quark 3.x - 6. By then Quark should have version 8 out hopefully. ( I will admit, the slow to market time is a pain, but at least they have most of the 'kinks' out when they do a release.)
As for price... simple, the number of people who need Quark is few, mainly large companies. Most designer/computer builder/mechanic/web designer/ebay auctioneer/student/waiter's gleen the software from Gnutella or similar and undercut legitimate business'. That leaves the handfull of honest professional users to pay through the nose for the tools they need. I'm sure if 80% of the Quark or Photoshop users actually paid properly for the software as used, the prices would drop to a more reasonable level.
99% of computer users don't need Quark; kind of like most drivers don't need Nitrous injected engines. There will always, however, be people who think Quark sucks, because it lacks bells and whistles, just like people will be crying because they blew their engines.
Well that's my 2 cents and a small rant to boot.
