Quark Inc. has been busy in preparation for archrival Adobe's pending launch of Creative Suite 3. In New York City last week, Quark hosted an analysts' briefing to review how QuarkXPress 7 has been retooled and expanded to blunt further competition from Adobe InDesign and the other applications in the Creative Suite bundle. Within the last few weeks, Quark has announced broader language support, compatibility with Windows Vista, and freely downloadable Xpert Tools (XTensions) for its flagship product. The analysts were told that shortly after Adobe unveils CS3 on March 27, Quark will respond with another briefing on how it assesses the new offering and what competitive impact it thinks the release is likely to have.
It's a good case study in proactive marketing communications' and convincing evidence of Quark's new reliance on openness and responsiveness as strategies for pushing back against the inroads of InDesign. At the briefing, Jürgen Kurz, senior vice president of the desktop business unit, spoke of a top-down commitment to "be as open as a public company" in terms of customer relations even though Quark remains privately held. Apparently, the word is getting out and sinking in: Kurz said that since QuarkXPress 7 was released last year with a complement of 160 new features, the holders of some 70,000 site licenses for older versions have upgraded to the new edition (currently in version 7.1).
Quark's market outreach wasn't always this persuasive, a fact that the company's new senior management team readily admits. The 20-year-old product lost ground to InDesign (which first shipped in 1999) through blunders like Quark's slowness to make the Mac version compatible with Apple's OS X. Users complained regularly about the lack of new features and lividly about sub-par customer support. Speaking about the quality of the product's interface, Kurz acknowledged that "the user experience is still the experience from 1991""”a situation that he said Quark is working hard to improve.
The company's present goal is to move on from past missteps and to reposition QuarkXPress as a fully-featured, powerful solution for multichannel publishing. Kurz said that Quark, having "missed the boat" by failing to make designers think of QuarkXPress as a creative tool, now is out to offer these users an experience that's "at least equal" to what they enjoy when working with the components of Creative Suite. Quark hopes to win converts in this segment with new features such as full manipulability of native Photoshop files; QuarkXPress Server 7 and "Composition Zones" for collaborative, distributed page creation; and Quark Interactive Designer, a plug-in for creating Flash-like projects on the Web.
The analysts were assured that QuarkXPress 7 won't forget its roots as a production tool"”the application that did more than any other to make desktop publishing a reality in thousands of prepress departments and service bureaus. New production-focused features include the ability to create XML-based "job jackets" that convey job specifications from creation to output. Quark also has released the Quark Print Collection, a bundle of XTensions or Acrobat plug-ins for page imposition and related markup. It's intended as an "aggressively priced" ($299) alternative to high-end imposition solutions like Preps and Impostrip.
Kurz and other Quark executives treated the briefing as a listening exercise, diligently jotting down the analysts' comments, eagerly soliciting their suggestions, and frankly picking their brains for nuggets of market intelligence. For staunch adherents of QuarkXPress, this change of attitude is welcome news indeed. What the launch of CS3 will do to escalate the Quark-Adobe desktop publishing "war" is anybody's guess, but Quark has made it clear that its days of being caught napping by its rival are permanently behind it.
Discussion
By Dr Joe Webb on Mar 17, 2007
One gets the sense that Adobe is moving onto bigger and what they consider as better things in other media. What will be quite interesting with CS3 is how much emphasis they do or don't put on print. We've heard Quark keep saying that they're different "this time" many times before. And then there's another shift in personnel, who say the same thing. For all practical purposes, InDesign is free when it is bundled as CS3. That's a hard thing to fight against from a marketing perspective. Another thing that might get to Quark on the low-end of the market, especially in a platform shift or in emerging markets, are the growing presence of Linux, Scribus (the desktop publishing software), and the GIMP (photo software), which are all open source and free to users. I wonder what their low-cost imposition programs will mean to companies like Ultimate.
By Andy on Mar 20, 2007
I don't think their impo package will even be a blip on the radar. My experience shows me that while there may be a number of locations running low cost imposition apps, few are outputting with them compared to what gets done with Preps. If Quark thinks they're going to take on Preps, then it's just another sign of the same old at that company. Are they forgetting about how many workflows tie in with that software? I'd really like to know how Quark thinks they'll be able to get users away from InDesign. They've had eight to nine years of opportunity to chart a competitive course. What makes anyone think they'll pull it off now, when InD hits version 5?
By John Stephens on Mar 20, 2007
Here's what's different between the products on the prepress level: You can print reliably from InDesign, while printing complex stuff from Quark is inconsistent and sometimes impossible. That's the mark of an immature technology, which Quark 7 feels like. This reminds me of Illustrator vs. CorelDraw, back in the day. You could design some swell stuff in CorelDraw, but it was often impossible to print what you saw on the screen. Illustrator's effects usually printed as expected, OTOH.
By Bruce Koski on Mar 20, 2007
Despite having been a Quark user for years, I feel there's no doubt they missed the boat taking so long in updating along with OSX for Macs. Most of the Mac print design and advertising world just couldn't wait for Quark to update, and when Adobe released InDesign within the Creative Suite at its rock-bottom price, that began Quark's end. Initially, InDesign was seemingly a retread of Pagemaker and had all kinds of printing problems. But through the versions, it's now a solid program. One thing Adobe needs to remember, however, is not to be so casual about creating previewing elements and effects in their applications for onscreen view, especially InDesign and Illustrator, which cannot always be printed cleanly. I learned design and printing from the production side up, and I still hear from printers that they have more difficulties with InDesign and Illustrator files than they do with Quark. Printers tell me also that they're printing about 50-50 Quark and InDesign. Magazines state that things are up to 70% InDesign; not anywhere I've talked to. These discrepancies seem to indicate that InDesign has long ago won the propaganda war. About Quark 7 specifically; I'm surprised at some of the interface issues and bugs that have been around since Q3, and are still there. The rip engine is faster than just about anything, but now it has some problems with larger documents - why did that start? Sadly, Quark will lose the battle with Adobe, not necessarily because InDesign might be better or not. Price and being bundled with the suite is just too much persuasion for the masses regardless of platform.
By Jerry K on Mar 20, 2007
Interesting comments, all. I have steadfastly refused to use InDesign (even though I own it) as my main page layout program simply because I have been a Quark user since 1991. For me, it is simply easier to build a multi-page publication from the ground up using Quark -- and that's what it's all about. I've been in this game a long time; used Pagemaker, Quark and InDesign on Mac and Windows. But when push comes to shove, give me a Mac and Quark. That being said, my major Quark gripe (besides the legendary awful customer service) is transforming large documents to .pdf files to send to printers. It seems to me that Quark really hasn't grasped the idea that editors/designers like to use .pdf files to maintain control and limit file size. Quark has never fully addressed this, and still makes it too difficult to do .pdf output/packaging. Pdf creation in InDesign is admittedly much easier and more reliable. Integration. Adobe gets it. When I buy my next computer, (24-inch IMac; a great value) I will most likely buy CS3. Time will tell if I then finally make the switch to InDesign. Until then, when I think "publication" I will launch Quark.
By Ted Abel on Mar 23, 2007
Adobe has great products, which I have used since 1989, and Quark since ver2.0 with the MacOS. Quark is now better focused on what its customers are demanding: support, stability, quality, compatibility, versatility, multimedia and intuitiveness. They have one disadvantage that the Adobe juggernaut has exploited and that is: most schools are almost all promoting InDesign and Adobe products. What incentives are the schools receiving from Adobe that Quark can't provide? There is more to this Adobe push than just a better product. Quark needs to get in on this education focus or they will surely lose their future customers. Apple started this a long time ago and its customers are now in the workforce who recognize the Apple brand experience immediately. Where are the Quark reps for educators? Why isn't Quark able to make an education push? If I were Quark, I would get on this pronto, for it may be too late!
By RJay H on Mar 23, 2007
I work in prepress. We used to be really big Quark fans. It was so much better than the only real alternative, PageMaker and even the first two versions of InDesign that it was worth putting up w/the company's arrogant attitude to its customers. We found Quark version 6.5 to generally be stable and produce printable files although its PDF support was never really solid. We find version 7 to be a huge disappointment. John Stephens' comment comparing it and InDesign to CorelDraw and Illustrator seems very apt to us. Yes you can design some nice things with it, but getting it to behave consistantly is another story. And it's still exceedingly slow. Personally, when I do layout these days, I use InDesign in preference to Quark because of Quark's general flakiness. They need to quit talking about what they are going to do going forward and concentrate on fixing the current version. Until it's at least as reliable as version 4.11 was, it's going to continue to lose customers I'm afraid. And Quark going out of business and leaving Adobe as the only real choice in page layout isn't going to help the industry. Competition is a good thing in software.
By Roger Weiner on Mar 23, 2007
The Quark Alliance Program for Print and Film Service Providers offers no price advantage to professionals who accept incoming files for print and film, such as us. We currently receive both PC and Mac versions of CS (InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, including Acrobat, etc) for 1-year period at $595. Quark want $175 fee plus $540 (list less 40%) for only 1 version, either PC or Mac. Dual versions are in the $1000 plus range. Adobe Print Service Providers (and Quark Print Service Providers) are in a unique position to recommend software they accept for output to upcoming graphic people. It doesn't take a lot of wisdom to see who you recommend. If you're not accepting Quark 7.0 files, you don't recommend it. I have tried to explain the fallacy to Quark; not much reception. Even outsource vendors we ocassionally use do not have Quark 7 and have no plans to upgrade. Vendor attitude and common sense are an important souce we look at before buying. Quark needs to look within. Quark seems to be marching to the same old different drummer; they need us more than we need them; they just haven't figured it out in marketing. Roger Weiner
By Kathy Combs on Mar 24, 2007
I whole heartedly agree that Quark needs to focus on the education end of its users. Most oif the students these days, (we output many portfolio projects for near graduating students, and they are all using the Adobe products. We have been a mostly Quark shop, doing design and pre-press to the printing industry, but in the light of this advancement to Adobe in the colleges and universities that are teaching design and multimedia, we are planning to switch our main programs to Adobe just to keep up with the students. They are the next generation of our business. I have used Quark for years and swear by its user friendly capabilities, but they need to address the education end. I am on an advisory board at a local art institute where they are only teaching the Adobe programs. Indesign is easy to learn and it integrates the use of native Illustrator and Photoshop files very easily. Kathy Combs
By Joey Sichol on Mar 24, 2007
The newest version of Quark still is overpriced and very buggy, despite being at verison 7.1. (Although, when it crashes, several times daily, the "bug report" still shows my version as 7.02.) I think Quark missed their chance when Adobe bought Macromedia. If Quark did this, they might have had a "suite" of programs to compete against Adobe's offerings. As it is, Quark is just going to lose market share, as people realize that a buggy, stand-alone product just can't compete. My company still uses Quark because of legacy support and that is not even a good reason anymore, with Markzware's converting program. A new business, just starting out, would really be stupid to use Quark. It doesn't make sense, monetarily or production wise. Most output these days is using pdf files. Why not go with the set of programs that sets the standard for pdf production? This is coming from a guy who's used Macs and PCs, Quark and Pagemaker/InDesign since the mid 90s in small to mid size businesses.
By Mary LIz Tippin-Moody on Mar 28, 2007
Very interesting interchange here. I am an old dog, using macs and both Adobe and Quark products since 1988. Quark was the shining star from its arrival until it fell behind at OSX. At that point, and especially after InDesign CS, one wondered why having this clunky app which forced you to keep a copy of the old OS to even run it...not to mention having to purchase multitudes of "XTensions" in order to do the item manipulations BUILT IN to InDesign. New installations and upgrades to Quark seem akin to trying to get into CIA headquarters, and trying to speak with a human in customer service?? forget it. Yes, I have Quark 7, but only because I have clients who also use it. The Adobe Suite prints reliably and predictably and the pdf distilling is practically foolproof. The comments about educational interface are also right on. Stolid Quark users seem like a dying breed. I have jumped the fence.