Forget the arguement of how good Quark is. The point is they are still big and holding back adoption of OSX because of their slow feet.
I think there is a risk that publishing houses who need to buy new machines and switch op systems might as well go windows if the OSX is not out.
So I say Apple buys Quark. Makes them pound out a OSX version.
This is a core part of their business and worth doing. They could also adopt this policy for other core markets. In a way they already have with the purchase of all the AV software companies and the Educational Powerschool company. Why not Quark. I also think they should do this with a game developer to assure some top notch games come to Mac first.
There's no actual technology (that we know of) Apple could use from Quark. They would be buying the name only. Doesn't seem worth the price they would demand. Quark is a throwback to the days of Gassee and company at Apple. And they have the same attitude that cost Gassee's Apple its marketshare, and Be its one big opportunity with Apple. Now look where they are.
If Quark doesn't show any significant improvements just in its core technology with version 6, then these designers will upgrade to something else for both their Macs and their PCs. InDesign isn't going to overtake Quark by themselves, they will need Quark's help. But Adobe has the momentum and the resources to possibly change the overwhelming inertia of the print industry.
I don't like how a lot of users use the status quo as and end unto itself. If that's a legitimate logic, well then we should just switch to Windows like everyone else in the herd. Just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it should be. Just because quark is so entrenched in so many major shops doesn't mean they deserve it, nor does it mean that things won't change.
I really don't think Quark has any desire to stay with macs, as other have pointed out that these big publishers are going PC more and more. They don't care one bit about the small shops, and why should they when their big customers are terrified of not having Quark? We seriously considered switching to inDesign in our Graphics group, went through the training, and at the last minute, the head of that group got cold feet, too afraid to move away from XPress. Quark knows that people's fear of not having good ol' dependable XPress 4 would mean switching to Windows before giving up Quark software. Fear drives the status quo.
At the same time, I'm hoping Quark gets their act together just so Adobe doesn't have a near-monopoly all major Mac markets (with exception maybe to video). I don't want to be Adobe's bitch any more than the print industry is Quark's already. Besdies, Adobe has the same idea of moving their users to PCs too. Having the print industry InDesign-based would spell the same scenario for Macs.
I don't see a winning scenario for Apple in all of this. FUD rules over everything, no matter what OS X brings to the table. Print is caught between Quark, InDesign and they are pushing people to Windows. We're just seeing this now as opposed to the late 90's just because the print industry is so lethargic. This would be the case with or without OS X.
We ditched Quark to jump To OSX and we are VERY happy with Indesign, we are never going back, and by we I mean <a href="http://www.adjectivegroup.com"; target="_blank">www.adjectivegroup.com</a> .
This guy I work with/ won this company with ahs been in this industry for over a decade and the day he picked up indesign was the day quark started collecting dust. its amazing how well it works.
I work in offset printing (manufacturing end) and film making is not going anywhere soon. You CANNOT control color on a digital press.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, perhaps it's time for a career change if you've never heard of digital plates before. This means PDF to plate output, which has nothing to do with a digital press. My family here in New Zealand has been in the print industry for over twenty years. They just purchased a new AGFA plate machine for about US$250,000.
As long as the file is in PDF format, plates can be printed. Therefore it is irrelevant which software produces the PDF file.
<strong>If Quark doesn't show any significant improvements just in its core technology with version 6, then these designers will upgrade to something else for both their Macs and their PCs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark is changing to adopt to Microsoft's .NET technologies. OS X, unfortunately, does not seem to have any plans in the future for modular code.
[quote]<strong>
But Adobe has the momentum and the resources to possibly change the overwhelming inertia of the print industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
InDesign may gain share from desk to desk, but will never be able to enter the publishing industry, where Quark has become the standard.
[QB]InDesign may gain share from desk to desk, but will never be able to enter the publishing industry, where Quark has become the standard.<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Quark is changing to adopt to Microsoft's .NET technologies. OS X, unfortunately, does not seem to have any plans in the future for modular code.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't OS X already modular? In CoreFoundation (at least the Cocoa part), CoreAudio, BSD, etc. all as frameworks/bundles? Or do you mean that Quark has no OS X plans with its modular code?
urk. InDesign isn't as clean as Quark. Adobe apps these days tend to be a UI mess. Quark is so clean and nice. I've spent a lot of time between Quark, InDesign and PageMaker. Quark is clearly the only one designed by people who actually do a lot of page layout. Of course, that may be why it never gets updated.
Apple bought Final Cut Pro and then LogicAudio. Maybe they should buy Quark. It would make the publishing community very pleased, to say the least.
Quark believes that people will move to whatever computing platform they endorse and will never consider alternatives. Adobe figures that if they support OS X and Windows they are hedging their bets. You ever done color correction on a Windows box? Publishing people like Macs more than they like Quark but most don't consider the two separate things, yet.
Isn't OS X already modular? In CoreFoundation (at least the Cocoa part), CoreAudio, BSD, etc. all as frameworks/bundles? Or do you mean that Quark has no OS X plans with its modular code?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey that's a good point. I was trying to poke at .NET and J2EE vs. OS X--I wasn't really looking at the Darwin side of OS X. So where do we start comparing .NET with OS X? At the opensource level? What I mean here is, isn't Aqua just a wrapper for UNIX? What sort of control does Apple have over their implementation of BSD, etc?
And yes, Quark seems to be more excited about its future with .NET technologies.
<strong> Apple bought Final Cut Pro and then LogicAudio. Maybe they should buy Quark. It would make the publishing community very pleased, to say the least.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only comment I'd like to make here is that I don't think Quark is up for sale nor is it considering selling. Apple's purchase of Logic was something they should have done a long time ago before Cubase started dominating the audio scene.
.NET is more akin to Cocoa (ObjC and Java) and WebObjects (Java with new support for web services) than anything else. Someone who's a real expert should confirm or refute this, but it seems that .NET and Java are, in theory at least, fairly equivalent in purpose if not implementation.
<strong> Someone who's a real expert should confirm or refute this, but it seems that .NET and Java are, in theory at least, fairly equivalent in purpose if not implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Java was meant as a write once, run anywhere development platform. .NET is supposed to be Microsoft's Java killer but you'll never be able to use it on anything other than an MS server (no matter what MS says today).
Want to imPRESS anyone with these numbers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, it's the cost of doing business. What would you prefer me to say? I was simply trying to point out that the technology is available and it's not cheap. Forgive me, I'll grovel more often.
<strong>.NET is more akin to Cocoa (ObjC and Java) and WebObjects (Java with new support for web services) than anything else. Someone who's a real expert should confirm or refute this, but it seems that .NET and Java are, in theory at least, fairly equivalent in purpose if not implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
.NET and J2EE are two new development platforms...J2EE is different than JAVA.
I don't think they compare to webobjects per se... I've read a number of articles on both and I haven't seen any comparison to Cocoa at all...
I'll find more info and start a new thread if it seems worth a toss.
Comments
I think there is a risk that publishing houses who need to buy new machines and switch op systems might as well go windows if the OSX is not out.
So I say Apple buys Quark. Makes them pound out a OSX version.
This is a core part of their business and worth doing. They could also adopt this policy for other core markets. In a way they already have with the purchase of all the AV software companies and the Educational Powerschool company. Why not Quark. I also think they should do this with a game developer to assure some top notch games come to Mac first.
If Quark doesn't show any significant improvements just in its core technology with version 6, then these designers will upgrade to something else for both their Macs and their PCs. InDesign isn't going to overtake Quark by themselves, they will need Quark's help. But Adobe has the momentum and the resources to possibly change the overwhelming inertia of the print industry.
I don't like how a lot of users use the status quo as and end unto itself. If that's a legitimate logic, well then we should just switch to Windows like everyone else in the herd. Just because that's the way it is doesn't mean that's the way it should be. Just because quark is so entrenched in so many major shops doesn't mean they deserve it, nor does it mean that things won't change.
I really don't think Quark has any desire to stay with macs, as other have pointed out that these big publishers are going PC more and more. They don't care one bit about the small shops, and why should they when their big customers are terrified of not having Quark? We seriously considered switching to inDesign in our Graphics group, went through the training, and at the last minute, the head of that group got cold feet, too afraid to move away from XPress. Quark knows that people's fear of not having good ol' dependable XPress 4 would mean switching to Windows before giving up Quark software. Fear drives the status quo.
At the same time, I'm hoping Quark gets their act together just so Adobe doesn't have a near-monopoly all major Mac markets (with exception maybe to video). I don't want to be Adobe's bitch any more than the print industry is Quark's already. Besdies, Adobe has the same idea of moving their users to PCs too. Having the print industry InDesign-based would spell the same scenario for Macs.
I don't see a winning scenario for Apple in all of this. FUD rules over everything, no matter what OS X brings to the table. Print is caught between Quark, InDesign and they are pushing people to Windows. We're just seeing this now as opposed to the late 90's just because the print industry is so lethargic. This would be the case with or without OS X.
This guy I work with/ won this company with ahs been in this industry for over a decade and the day he picked up indesign was the day quark started collecting dust. its amazing how well it works.
Bye Bye quark.
its time for everyone to make that leap of faith.
<strong>
I work in offset printing (manufacturing end) and film making is not going anywhere soon. You CANNOT control color on a digital press.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, perhaps it's time for a career change if you've never heard of digital plates before. This means PDF to plate output, which has nothing to do with a digital press. My family here in New Zealand has been in the print industry for over twenty years. They just purchased a new AGFA plate machine for about US$250,000.
As long as the file is in PDF format, plates can be printed. Therefore it is irrelevant which software produces the PDF file.
<strong>If Quark doesn't show any significant improvements just in its core technology with version 6, then these designers will upgrade to something else for both their Macs and their PCs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark is changing to adopt to Microsoft's .NET technologies. OS X, unfortunately, does not seem to have any plans in the future for modular code.
[quote]<strong>
But Adobe has the momentum and the resources to possibly change the overwhelming inertia of the print industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
InDesign may gain share from desk to desk, but will never be able to enter the publishing industry, where Quark has become the standard.
[ 11-30-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
[QB]InDesign may gain share from desk to desk, but will never be able to enter the publishing industry, where Quark has become the standard.<hr></blockquote>
Time will tell...
<strong>Quark is changing to adopt to Microsoft's .NET technologies. OS X, unfortunately, does not seem to have any plans in the future for modular code.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn't OS X already modular? In CoreFoundation (at least the Cocoa part), CoreAudio, BSD, etc. all as frameworks/bundles? Or do you mean that Quark has no OS X plans with its modular code?
Apple bought Final Cut Pro and then LogicAudio. Maybe they should buy Quark. It would make the publishing community very pleased, to say the least.
<strong>
Isn't OS X already modular? In CoreFoundation (at least the Cocoa part), CoreAudio, BSD, etc. all as frameworks/bundles? Or do you mean that Quark has no OS X plans with its modular code?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey that's a good point. I was trying to poke at .NET and J2EE vs. OS X--I wasn't really looking at the Darwin side of OS X. So where do we start comparing .NET with OS X? At the opensource level? What I mean here is, isn't Aqua just a wrapper for UNIX? What sort of control does Apple have over their implementation of BSD, etc?
And yes, Quark seems to be more excited about its future with .NET technologies.
<strong> Apple bought Final Cut Pro and then LogicAudio. Maybe they should buy Quark. It would make the publishing community very pleased, to say the least.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only comment I'd like to make here is that I don't think Quark is up for sale nor is it considering selling. Apple's purchase of Logic was something they should have done a long time ago before Cubase started dominating the audio scene.
<strong>Its time for everyone to make that leap of faith.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only a few questions:
<strong>
My family here in New Zealand has been in the print industry for over twenty years. They just purchased a new AGFA plate machine for about US$250,000.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Want to imPRESS anyone with these numbers?
<strong> Someone who's a real expert should confirm or refute this, but it seems that .NET and Java are, in theory at least, fairly equivalent in purpose if not implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, Java was meant as a write once, run anywhere development platform. .NET is supposed to be Microsoft's Java killer but you'll never be able to use it on anything other than an MS server (no matter what MS says today).
<strong>
Want to imPRESS anyone with these numbers?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, it's the cost of doing business. What would you prefer me to say? I was simply trying to point out that the technology is available and it's not cheap. Forgive me, I'll grovel more often.
<strong>.NET is more akin to Cocoa (ObjC and Java) and WebObjects (Java with new support for web services) than anything else. Someone who's a real expert should confirm or refute this, but it seems that .NET and Java are, in theory at least, fairly equivalent in purpose if not implementation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
.NET and J2EE are two new development platforms...J2EE is different than JAVA.
I don't think they compare to webobjects per se... I've read a number of articles on both and I haven't seen any comparison to Cocoa at all...
I'll find more info and start a new thread if it seems worth a toss.
:cool: