How Adobe InDesign took over publishing with Steve Jobs' help

Posted:
in General Discussion edited September 1
Adobe's page layout software InDesign dominates publishing, but it got there despite starting off on August 31, 1999 against a once equally dominant rival -- and we got Adobe to talk about the past and present of the long-time design application.

In 1998, it was Steve Jobs who gave the world its first peek at what would become Adobe InDesign
In 1998, it was Steve Jobs who gave the world its first peek at what would become Adobe InDesign


When Adobe InDesign was launched on August 31, 1999, it was aimed at precisely one rival, the then immensely successful QuarkXPress. Yet really the whole development of this page design software is the story of rival companies fighting. There was Quark and Adobe, but also Adobe and Aldus -- and Adobe and Apple.

Without Apple, we would at least not have had the publishing systems we do quite as early as we got them. It was Apple's LaserWriter printer, built to use Adobe's PostScript language, which made the single biggest difference to the future of both companies.

That combination began the publishing revolution that went all the way from home users being able to do newsletters, to national magazines being produced in ways and at speeds unimaginable before.

Adobe InDesign would come to dominate that the entirety of print publishing, but it did so after bitter competition -- and today it's facing certain issues that once dethrowned its rivals.

Playing nice

In the earliest days, before InDesign was produced, publishing as a whole was being irrevocably changed by the trio of Adobe, Apple, and Aldus, with its PageMaker software.

However, the three were as much rivals as they were collaborators. Apple and Adobe soon disagreed over how fonts should be used, and much later they would famously argue over Adobe's Flash.

Adobe and Aldus were increasingly competitive, too, with rival products for illustration, for instance. In 1994, though, that ended. The firms both announced that they were merging to form a new company. However, it was really a takeover, as Aldus vanished within this new firm, which was called Adobe Systems. Adobe had effectively just bought Aldus to get PageMaker.

So Adobe now had a page design app in PageMaker, but that product had already become chiefly a consumer one. At the time, professional users were almost entirely buying QuarkXPress.

In 1998, Quark's CEO Fred Ebrahimi even offered to buy Adobe. It wasn't a serious offer, it was a way to tell customers that Quark was in business and Adobe was in trouble.

Visitors to the 1998 Seybold Conference had these badges. (Source: Pamela Pfiffner's book The Adobe Story)
Visitors to the 1998 Seybold Conference had these badges. (Source: Pamela Pfiffner's book The Adobe Story)


"The Quark takeover attempt catalyzed the company," Adobe founder John Warnock told Pamela Pfiffner for her book, Inside the Publishing Revolution: The Adobe Story.

"Our response was, we're going to be damned if we get taken over by these turkeys," he continued. "We're going to annihilate them. We'll just out-engineer them."

It wasn't as if this was what prompted Adobe to create a rival to Quark, but it may have been what prompted them to exploit an invitation by Steve Jobs.

"I think both companies [Adobe and Apple] were at the crossroads," InDesign 2.0 product manager Maria Yap told AppleInsider. "Steve Jobs had just come back to Apple. Apple was struggling to get developers -- in particularly our main competitor [Quark] -- to commit to develop for the new OS."

"In the early days," she continues, "Adobe worked closely with Apple and Aldus to deliver the key components of Desktop Publishing -- Postscript, Illustrator, Fonts, Apple Laserwriter, Aldus Pagemaker, etc. And Adobe understood better than others that Apple had a massively strong following in the creative space."

Jobs spoke at the 1998 Seybold Conference, which at the time was a particularly notable annual publishing event. In promoting Apple, Jobs brought representatives from both Quark and Adobe up on stage to show how their companies were supporting the Mac.




Steve Jobs introducing the world's first look at Adobe InDesign


Nobody remembers what Quark did, but Adobe took this opportunity to show off what was then called K2. It was a prototype of what would become InDesign, and it was very well received. Demos do make their topic look good, but in this environment, there was already a hyped-up feel in the audience.

Publish magazine even had badges you could wear to show your allegiance to either Quark or Adobe.

"There was a ton of excitement for Adobe InDesign," says Yap. " So much passion from the team and focus from the executives to make InDesign a success, and excitement from the customer. Everyone knew the stakes we were playing for and a page layout app was 'The App' back then, much like a UI/UX app is today."

InDesign's core

Even before Adobe bought Aldus, specifically to get Pagemaker, that app's team had been looking to create something new. Pagemaker was a hodge-podge of software, written in different languages and really increasingly cobbled together, so the team was looking at starting again.

That continued under the Adobe Systems years, and grew with the addition of more software engineers from the old Adobe. InDesign would not only start again, but it would avoid Pagemaker's issues by being built from the start as a collection of separate modules which could be upgraded or replaced without affecting the rest of the app.

After Adobe took over, InDesign also utilized the firm's hugely successful PDF format. It also had the advantage of being made to look like Photoshop and Illustrator. That user interface coherency meant publishers who were already familiar with those apps, were immediately familiar with InDesign.

Launch reaction

Maybe you have to have been there, but in at least certain areas of publishing in the late 1990s, there was genuine excitement about the then forthcoming InDesign. Then when it arrived, it was initially met with genuine enthusiasm, too.

"Adobe InDesign is here," said MacWeek in September 1999, "and the status quo in graphic design software is about to change."

"Casting XPress in the role of defending champion," it continued," the Adobe development team has clearly worked with the aim of matching or exceeding its capabilities -- so if you have a wish-list for XPress, you'll probably find it in InDesign."

Even though this is from K2, an early pre-release version, you can still recognize it as Adobe InDesign
Even though this is from K2, an early pre-release version, you can still recognize it as Adobe InDesign


An initial win for InDesign was in its typesetting capabilities, and in how speedily it performed. Equally, though, it required some at-the-time hefty Mac gear to have that performance. Adobe said it needed a G3 processor with 128MB of RAM. Even by 2002, QuarkXPress 5 needed only a PowerPC processor and 20MB RAM.

Plus it was true that Quark users could very easily open their existing documents in Adobe InDesign. However, it was also true that you then needed to do a lot of work to make those documents look right.

So there were mixed reactions, but then in late 2001, Adobe got another boost from Apple -- and Apple got another boost from Adobe.

"When we were developing InDesign 2.0 [which was released in January 2002]," says Yapp, "Apple had announced their move to OS X. We knew that InDesign had to support the new operating system -- we needed to 'future proof' our newest product. Fortunately while we supported Mac OS X, the competition did not."

That last point proved crucial. For arguably the greatest help InDesign ever got, the greatest thing that propelled it to take over publishing from QuarkXPress, was Quark itself.

By 2001, Steve Jobs was back, the iMac had exploded, and InDesign was growing. Yet it was as if Quark had noticed any of this and still believed Apple was in the death throes it had been during the 1990s.

When yet another major update to Quark came out and it wasn't using OS X, users complained. Quark's Ebrahimi told them that this was tough. "The Macintosh platform is shrinking," he said, and suggested that they "switch to something else."

He meant Windows, but the effect was that Mac users recognized Quark wasn't going to improve, and so they switched to InDesign.

Through the 2000s and 2010s

Adobe InDesign is a strong and very good app for publishing, it did not come to dominate the industry because it was the only choice. Nonetheless, it really did dominate it has continued to do so to this day -- even as Quark has returned to the Mac.

It was arguably InDesign 2, launched on OS X in January 2002, that really launched the success of the app
It was arguably InDesign 2, launched on OS X in January 2002, that really launched the success of the app


While Quark continues to be a standalone app, though, Adobe InDesign has become part of the Adobe Creative Cloud, and there are certain compelling benefits to users.

"Adobe had been selling Collections, several products together for a valuable price," says Maria Yapp. "Unfortunately, products had very different schedules which limited how much integration and alignment we could do. When we decided to create Creative Suite, it forced the product teams to align their schedule and then soon after we were able to come out with new products like Adobe Bridge, work on Open In workflows, and refine the user experience for better consistency."

InDesign is part of a collection of major applications and the intention is that for a single monthly subscription fee, you can have access to all of them. Maybe you use InDesign daily, but you only launch Adobe Illustrator once per year. It's there waiting for when you need it, and you don't have to pay an extra fee.

Version control

However, as useful as these benefits are, and important as technical issues like the move to OS X were, there are also practical issues that affect publishers. And today Adobe InDesign is starting to be affected by them.

For instance, it is obviously an extremely big undertaking to move your publishing house from one system to another -- a monthly magazine can't come out a week late just because some setting is wrong.

What's less immediately obvious, though, that it's still a pretty big move going from even one version of a system to another. No publisher could risk updating their copy of InDesign on the day it was released, because any bug could be calamitous.

So publishers tend to stick with a working version of InDesign until a new one has had any bugs uncovered and fixed. They tend to stick with the older one until there is time in the schedule to upgrade everyone.

That can mean that the average publisher is a couple of versions behind the very latest edition, even though that does mean they're missing out on features. That's a shame, and it's a reason for companies to try to update often, but now it's become an actual problem.

Adobe InDesign CC 2019
Adobe InDesign CC 2019


Adobe will not and possibly legally cannot explain this, but as of May 2019, customers can't just hang on to any old version. InDesign is now only available as part of the Adobe Creative Cloud -- although you can elect to subscribe to just a single app in that collection, it's still part of the collection. And Creative Cloud users are currently required to download and use only either the latest version or the second most recent one.

Without inside knowledge, the most likely explanation is that this is to do with a legal case brought against Adobe by Dolby. Up to some point, some Creative Cloud apps appear to have been using software modules or techniques developed by Dolby, and Adobe has now removed those.

"Unfortunately, customers who continue to use or deploy older, unauthorized versions of Creative Cloud may face potential claims of infringement by third parties," announced Adobe.

If we're correct that it's to do with specific software that has now been removed, there's presumably a chance that this limit on older versions will slowly become less important. Perhaps at some point Adobe will be able to say that rather than the latest two editions, you can only use Creative Cloud apps from after a certain 2019 version.

As it stands, we can't even know if InDesign itself ever contained this software, or whatever else it is that is causing the issue.

We can't be sure what's going on with InDesign, and this has got to make InDesign vulnerable. If you are forced to update software you rely on, you are being forced to make a major change that can't be that much different to switching to another system entirely.

And today QuarkXPress is a strong contender again.

Adobe InDesign was born 20 years ago out of a series of rivalries between firms, and while it took over the entire industry, it could now be heading right back to those days of severe competition.

That will hopefully be good for users, but we are now in a very different world from twenty years ago when Quark and Adobe were first trying to out-do each other to make more compelling products.

"Looking back, it was great to be part of an era that helped define Adobe as a company," says Yap. "[QuarkXPress] had a lot of market share, but they were not focusing on innovation and delighting the customer. We had very innovative features... [and] in addition, we could provide better workflows with deep integration between Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign."


Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    Both Quark and Adobe were very arrogant at that time. Adobe thought it still was the 80’s and could charge $$$ for fonts that had been around for more than a decade and yet their pricing was like it was cutting edge. Early InDesign was enticing, but lacked more powerful typesetting controls that Quark had. This was one of the major reasons why a lot of print shops stuck with Quark. They didn’t really like how Quark nickel and dimed them for updates and support, but it still was faster in getting projects done than indesign. 

    Once Adobe updated InDesign to address many of the shortcomings that Quark veterans pointed out to them, things got worse for Quark. People were switching left and right and Quark had to come out with another version that was keeping up with InDesign, and even made the upgrade affordable, but the damage was done. 

    I’ve been out of the printing support business for over a decade, so I don’t know what is preferred now, but when I was leaving, the push was taking printing materials online and making the print publishing and web publishing business seamless. 
    viclauyycmacplusplusdonjuanargonaut
  • Reply 2 of 31
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 724member
    This covers an interesting arc. Adobe went from an ambitious upstart trying to unseat an established, albeit arrogant, standard, to becoming the arrogant standard.

    Right now I do whatever I can to avoid using Adobe software. The final straw was when they went to overpriced rental software that forced updates whether you wanted them or not. They are just abusive and arrogant and overpriced. Fortunately I don't HAVE to use it for my work so I have the option. More and more though, I hear from my friends that DO use it that they are looking at alternatives or at least wish they could use alternatives. And alternatives ARE out there. The unrest is growing. Soon options will appear and Adobe is going to be unseated.

    I'm Betting On AFFINITY
    edited August 31 luxuriantviclauyycmacpluspluscornchippscooter63donjuanfotoformatargonaut
  • Reply 3 of 31
    Quark was bad but now Adobe is even worse...
    viclauyycmacpluspluscornchipdonjuanargonaut
  • Reply 4 of 31
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,105member
    I remember switching over to InDesign well before most of my competitors. Yeah i was one of those excited about Adobe joining the fray, and I honestly disliked Quark anyway.

    One of the large design studios in the area who sent me me quite a bit of large format work thought I was crazy to do so, that Quark was in it for the long haul and there were already too many entrenched professionals for InDesign to be more than a minor presence. Saw zero reason to consider anything other than Quark.  In fact for a few months that big agency chose to pull their business from me saying it was just too much trouble to build print files for my Adobe software, tho they did eventually come back.

    Gosh, Pagemaker, Quark, Adobe, Corel, ... Brings back old memories of flying by the seat of my pants and learning by fire. 
    taugust04_aid_2SpamSandwich
  • Reply 5 of 31
    It will be interesting to see how Affinity Publisher turns out in the long run - similar to InDesign's layout but at an affordable cost. 
    DAalsethcornchipdonjuanargonaut
  • Reply 6 of 31
    Ah nostalgia, thanks for taking me back. 


    edited August 31 neutrino23donjuanargonaut
  • Reply 7 of 31
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,700member
    DAalseth said:
    This covers an interesting arc. Adobe went from an ambitious upstart trying to unseat an established, albeit arrogant, standard, to becoming the arrogant standard.

    Right now I do whatever I can to avoid using Adobe software. The final straw was when they went to overpriced rental software that forced updates whether you wanted them or not. They are just abusive and arrogant and overpriced. Fortunately I don't HAVE to use it for my work so I have the option. More and more though, I hear from my friends that DO use it that they are looking at alternatives or at least wish they could use alternatives. And alternatives ARE out there. The unrest is growing. Soon options will appear and Adobe is going to be unseated.

    I'm Betting On AFFINITY
    I remember the years of paying over $1,500 for whatever version of photoshop, only to upgrade a few years later like clockwork.

    Now I pay $10/mo for PS AND Lightroom.  It would take 10+ years to pay that for one version of PS I paid years ago.  

    Not sure what math you’re using, but it’s a bargain compared to what I was paying.  Sure, they’re arrogant, but what company isn’t? 

    The economics of going with Adobe was just better than going with a small player that I’m not sure would be around in a few years.
    edited August 31 cornchip
  • Reply 8 of 31
    A really interesting overview of the development of InDesign and Adobe Creative Cloud. What I find more concerning is the discussion around Version Control and not being able to retain earlier Versions of the Apps. How will Plugin Developers cope with this? What recourse will we have with regard to 3rd Party Plugin Development? I know that at times I have needed to maintain up to 3 Versions of some of the Adobe Creative Cloud Apps, just to be able to utilise Plugins that had become a vital component of my Workflows and Automations. When pushing some of these Developers for Updates, there wasn't any apparent enthusiasm to 'rush', or even take the question seriously. If these Plugins become Workflow Critical and don't get updated, what position will we find ourselves in when we are unable to utilise previous Versions of these Apps?
  • Reply 9 of 31
    There's one additional element to this publishing story: Adobe FrameMaker. Adobe bought FrameMaker from Frame Technologies in 1995. It was a tool for writing large documentation sets (think manuals of thousands of pages). At some point even Apple used Frame for their documentation.

    Sadly, despite having a UNIX version at the time, it never made the move to Mac OS X. 

    (I don't think you'd ever use InDesign to cross reference an entire entire encyclopedia of information. Maybe it's better at large documents now?)


    edited August 31 lmasantiargonaut
  • Reply 10 of 31
    Nice to read a balanced take on the history of InDesign. I worked in print through that transition. I was quite good in XPress, I’m not sure I’m as fast in InDesign almost 20 years later, but the depth of modern InDesign allows for so much more than XPress offered. XPress was like the stripped down sports car and InDesign was a luxury SUV with all the options. One went really fast, the other could do anything you wanted if you took the time to go all the way down the rabbit hole to get it done. 

    In the end, I think the correct expensive software won. I like having my pixel, vector & typography apps under one umbrella. I’ve found the arrangement beneficial to my workflow. I remember having to save EPS files of my Illustrator artwork and TIFF versions of my raster artwork to place in XPress, while saving Native, editable, versions next to them in case I needed to revise my work. Now I can just drop native files from any adobe app into any other. 

    I’m starting to fork my photo editing workflow away from adobe, though. Capture One Pro is so compelling, I use it for all client work where I’m responsible for converting RAW photography. I don’t enjoy the round tripping (or lack thereof) of burning multiple TIFF versions as I refine my conversions to be further edited in photoshop. But the color features of Capture One Pro are so good and it’s speed & productivity is so far ahead, it’s worth the convoluted round tripping of files to incorporate the software. 

    To go further down this OT tangent, I really wish it were possible to place Capture One Pro’s EIP files into Photoshop as a Linked Smart Object, which would allow for round tripping, sort of like you can embed or link a DNG RAW file as a Smart Object now and re-edit with ACR RAW conversion controls with a double click. Such a great feature. Wish it were open to other file formats. 
  • Reply 11 of 31
    Initially InDesign was lacking, but people were eager to get off QuarkXPress. Quark annoyed everybody with insane pricing, hardware dongles, stability problems, and the transition of QuarkXPress from 68k to PPC was a mess. People were really looking for any excuse to switch to a different offer as soon as it was viable. I was a typographer back then and was in the midst of it.

    Nowadays Adobe is showing the same arrogance and shitty support as Quark did back then. Quark is one strong contender again, but there’s also the new kid on the block, Affinity Publisher. I personally love Affinity, because they show a good understanding of the needs of designers, the developers are very responsive, a the software is really solid. Then again, I don’t do print stuff anymore, my love is mainly for Affinity Designer.
    edited August 31 argonautNiallivm
  • Reply 12 of 31
    Aldus Type Styler was a really nice program from back then. 
    lmasantipolymniaargonaut
  • Reply 13 of 31
    For me it was the powerful bitmap layering, spot color abilities, color preview features, and reliable PDF file creation of InDesign that Quark could not get close to. 

    I was was able to compose and layer magazine covers entirely in InDesign. Fewer trips to photoshop. 
  • Reply 14 of 31
    Great article covering a time of big changes. Thanks. Brought back a lot of memories.
  • Reply 15 of 31
    Still get nightmares over the years way back when I was dealing with Quark. It really was a tool for production people, not really a designer-friendly piece of software.
    edited September 1
  • Reply 16 of 31
    I still having some problems in InDesign CC 2019 that I have from CC4!
    And as for integration or even similar interfaces, ID-PS-AI still are three horses! They do not even interact correctly!
    In InDesign editing in an enlarged main window is like a torture. The programs do not take into account FontBook settings.

    And I still missing the single desktop metaphor of PageMaker for all the pages: ID is like having a table for each page!

    It seems to me that all the work done is to please Adobe: non native UI, full of ‘buy Adobe’ and so on…

    In the history lane… did somebody use ReadySetGo?
    drooargonaut
  • Reply 17 of 31
    For me it was the powerful bitmap layering, spot color abilities, color preview features, and reliable PDF file creation of InDesign that Quark could not get close to. 

    I was was able to compose and layer magazine covers entirely in InDesign. Fewer trips to photoshop. 
    Bitmap layer control is one of the greatest time savers if you need to layer your page layouts into your raster images. Not sure if XPress ever added this feature, but it seemed like science fiction at the time, definitely one of the up sides to those two horses living in the same stable. 
    edited September 1
  • Reply 18 of 31
    lmasanti said:

    In the history lane… did somebody use ReadySetGo?
    Short, sweet, to the point, and nobody gets hurt. Loved it.
    droo
  • Reply 19 of 31
    I worked at large publishing house that was exclusively Mac/QuarkXpress – and shifted every seat to InDesign because Quark failed to deliver any innovation or even regular bug fixes. Hell, for years it didn't even have an undo function, let alone multiple undoes or history. InDesign was glorious by comparing. Now at home I'm working towards an Adobe-free environment, with Affinity Photo instead of Photoshop and Apple Motion instead of After Effects.
    cornchipargonaut
  • Reply 20 of 31
    Interesting times back then, but Steve Jobs had nothing to do with InDesign's surging ahead of Quark. I was working in the printing industry during those times when it was a good industry to be working in. Quark was the dominate player as it was just the better tool, even if they lagged behind on porting over to OS X. Indesign wasn't very good, just a rework of Pagemaker, which was pretty basic page layout. It didn't become decent or useful until around the time Adobe started to release it as part of the Creative Suite, but at this point they were practically giving it away because no one wanted to use it (well some did). Well the industry took a down turn and this is when costs were cut and budgets were scrutinized. For the cost of 1 Quark upgrade you could upgrade to Creative Suite (which was Photoshop, Illustrator, and included Indsign). Everyone needed Photoshop and Illustrator anyway so the choice seemed pretty practical. I saw an overnight shift from Quark to Indesign files, and we dropped most of our Quark licenses and kept 1 active for the odd client. At the same time the rise of PDF files for proofing, workflow, and deliverable's (instead of native collected files) were on the rise. Indesign was  better at creating them.

    Quark just priced themselves out of the business, lagged behind on quality PDF creation and luckily Adobe's bundling helped the industry move along.
    cornchipjeffharrisargonaut
Sign In or Register to comment.