Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.
InDesign supports AppleScript in a big way, and the current versions of Photoshop and ImageReady are showing the beginning of AppleScript integration.
I would guess that the next version af Acrobat will have a better AppleScript implementation - perhaps I should ask around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clive, I would have to agree with JLL on this. Although I have not done a lot with InDesign scripting, I have been playing around with Illustrator 10 scripting, and it is powerfull. It is a little perculure (sp) but so is Quark. InDesign looks to have as comprehensive of a scripting dictionary as Quarks, however it will cost money (time) in learning the proper syntax to convert all of those Quark workflow scripts to InDesign.
From looking at the latest versions of Adobe's products it looks like they are finally seeing the light about AppleScript, ie, it dosnt take a programer, who dosnt know what needs done or how to implement it, to write what needs to be done, a designer or production worker can do it with a small learning curve and save big $ for the company. I can still remember my first AppleScript experience. We were in a crunc time on a big text book, working 12+ hour shifts to get the PS files on disk to send out to a number of prepress houses for film. We needed to identify the plate color for each seperated file, and within relatively little time, and an AppleScript for dummies book I wrote a script to analyze the post script file, and rename it based on the plate color. This got me a $1.00 an hour raise. Although I dont use it much as a designer now, I see its value in workflow, as well as its under-use and under-appreciated value. It is a great tool, and unlike VB, JavaScript, etc. it is relatively easy to learn, and extreamly powerfull.
There are no indications that Apple is trying to increase market share. Increased market share does not guarantee profitability. Market share in itself presents ups and downs within a business strategy, and I'm not convinced Apple's game plan at this point is to increase market share.
As far as there being "two" main reasons that PC users buy Macintosh, there is, actually only ONE reason, which I may reveal later but is beyond the scope of this post. You may want to search for the topic "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" under any number of fora to see the multitude of answers being given.
<--- best regards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I remember Steve himself stated that he though Apple could achieve double their current market share. That is not to say that they are actively trying to reach that at this time. I would personally say that Apple is setting the groundwork for a growth in market share. This can be seen in their purchase of Shake (professional), the release of Xserve, iPod, Rendevue, iSync, the other iApps, and the Switch campaign (consumer, though I think that it is too early for this advertising given the current limitations of the hardware). But I would say, looking at the long term picture that Apple is looking to increase market share in a very big way, probably in larger numbers than Steve himselfe stated was possibl earlier this year.
In my opinion there was a big push for OS X adoption. First there was FreeHand, then InDesign, Illstrator, and finally Photoshop. Photoshop held a sugnificant psychological benchmark, becouse it is so integrated in most workflows, weather for the web, video, or print. Adobe timed it about right, not letting the new kids on the block get too much ahead, yet coming out with a program that didnt have the flaws that PS 5 had. Illustrator 10 has some of the same workflow/print production flaws that 9 had, but with the increasing adoption of pdf workflows this is becoming overcome. Quark is the last of these psycological berriors for Apple to overcome, so it is getting a lot of attention right now.
Quark is in a delicat position right now. Their dominance is bieng threatened by Adobe, yet for the past few years they have been trying to create new programs that expand their influence (imedia, their package design program, etc) . They have always been "sloppy" at following Apples programing guidelines, this is one of the reasons that I have heard gven for problems that arose with 4.0, and no doubt it has raised broblems with a move to OS X. They have also been playing a fine line between supporting ther xtension developers and end users who use AppleScript for workflow management and integration. I remember some concern raised a number of years ago about how extensive AppleScript support was in Quark was stealing potential revenue from Xtension developers, yet it is one of the cornerstones to the success of Quark along with the Xtensable qualaties of the program.
Today we see a new arena coming into play. In the near future printing a book will not be enough, you will also need it on line. pdf is a nice delivery tool, but it is not enough. XML promises much, but the tools are not up to the needs of the publishing industry. The company that offers the best solutions, programs, Xtension, and Scripting, to bring about the promis of XML will will the big industries in the long run. Smaller shops, and Advertising agencies can use whatever suits them. They are not producing a 100 page magazinge a month, a daily paper, or a hunred books 500+ page books a year. It is relatively painless for them to adopt part of their workflow to fit their clients needs when they are doing a 10 page brochure, or put the burden of troubleshooting the files to the prepress house. In the end, the large publishing houses will set the industry tend due to the inertia of their size and needs will create once they come to a conclustion of the best way to deal with their buisness needs. From my personal experience of working for a number of these publishers over the past 7 years the will all come to similar conclusions, and settle on either Quark or InDesign. The Mac platform has a major advantage, but I wouldnt say that it is rock solid at the moment. The industry is entering a stage of flux right now, and as someone who has had some part of looking into the solutions, I would say that the future is pretty cloudy right now.
If I remember Steve himself stated that he though Apple could achieve double their current market share. {...}</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if Apple makes a "dent" by doubling it's current market share (~10%) it's not going to make a difference. The PC has become sugar water. Only a 50/50 handshake at this point will mean anything to the consumer. Until then, we're stuck in a revolving door business design.
Unfortunately for the LAUB, Apple will always be the minority as a proprietary system. Even if the 970 saves Apple from its current hardware woes, the rest of the world is running on x86. Development for that ISA will always come first. (Thus, a 50/50 handshake is the only solution to ensure "even" application development.)
Great reply. I don't disagree that the publishing business is in a flux right now. What I am saying is that whether or not Quark is available on X or not is not keeping people from buying Power Macs.
I know this first hand, my best friend is the West Coast Director for a nationwide Apple Specialist. He sells hundreds of macs at a time, to agencies all over California as well as entertainment companies like the one I work for who use Quark every minuuteof their day. Do any of these people care whether or not Quark or Photoshop is available on X when they are deciding on these machines? NO. Why? Because when Quark for X comes out it will run on whatever they buy. My point? Apple's claim of people waiting to buy Power Macs because of Quark being unavailable on X is a smokescreen for what the real problem is.
Economy + poor hardware upgrades = Low Power Mac sales.
My friend actually had an agency choose iMacs over Power Macs. Includes display...not much slower than Power Macs...SDRAM cheaper than DDR that is NOT EVEN BEING USED.
<strong> Quark is in a delicat position right now. Their dominance is bieng threatened by Adobe, {...} </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
The next time you go to a magazine stand, like a large Hudson News in New York City, and have access to a few thousand titles to choose from, realize this: all of them were produced with Quark Xpress.
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. That's why they're holding off and making deals with Microsoft. InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.
Please keep in mind that Apple is a "public" company. Meaning that they have to watch what they say. Apple is NOT going to come out and say that slow Power Mac sales are because the processors are slow.....[QUOTE]
Actually, they are going to say that...as they detailed in their 10-K filing a couple of weeks ago.
That warning tells me that the problem isn't going to be fixed anytime between now and the next annual report.
Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that Steve Jobs only owns two shares of Apple stock, I often doubt if Apple has the best interests of its shareholders in mind. Steve Jobs compensation for 2001 was over $80 million and Apple's net income was only $61 million. Investors of Apple Computer are usually fans of the company rather than "real" investors as Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business. Apple's own board of directors was just voted among the eight worst in America by BusinessWeek. Apple's board is primarily set up so that Mr. Jobs has carte blanche to the company--and very few questions are asked. (When shareholders object to company protocol he basically tells them in so many words to go **** themselves).
If you run into Mr. Jobs at MWSF, ask him why he wasn't able to give his dedicated, hard-working employees a Christmas bonus for the past two years while he fuels up his new Gulfstream on the company's tab.
<strong>My friend actually had an agency choose iMacs over Power Macs. Includes display...not much slower than Power Macs...SDRAM cheaper than DDR that is NOT EVEN BEING USED.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belive me, the DDR RAM in Power Macs IS being used.
<strong>...the rest of the world is running on x86. Development for that ISA will always come first...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a bit of a fallacy -- developers don't develop for an ISA, they develop for a platform. Even if Apple's hardware was x86 based, developers would still have to do 99% of the porting work because Apple uses a different operating system. There is so little assembly code in use these days as to be irrelevant -- it is almost equivalent to the difference between PentiumIV and Athlon (given 3DNow! vs SSE and the different optimizations that are required). Developer adoption is not a reason for Apple to switch to x86; quite the opposite, actually.
This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
The next time you go to a magazine stand, like a large Hudson News in New York City, and have access to a few thousand titles to choose from, realize this: all of them were produced with Quark Xpress.
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. That's why they're holding off and making deals with Microsoft. InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MacLuv, my statement may have been a bit strong. But the fact remains that there are large publishers that are seriosuly looking into InDesign workflows right now as a replacement for Quark. I'm not just making this statement without some knowledge of what is going on, I work for a large production/design/editorial company that produces books for some of the largest book publishers in the US. Our company has been asked to look into InDesign by a number of these companies and they are currently doing small scale projects using InDesign. This is in an industry that will probably never adobt Quark 5 on a large scale and is just finishing a migration to Qark 4.1. There is a need/desire for these publishers to have material that is easy to repurpose, and XML is bieng touted as the way to do this. These companies will spend the money neccessary to upgrade their workflows to integrate XML into them as soon as a workable solution is on the market.
Having looked at InDesign with this in mind for my company, I have some opinions on how suited it is for this task. Right now it has some major drawbacks. In particular, due to its "local" flattening of "pages" it cannot be used with the OPI workflow that my company uses. This adds time to every stage in the production and proofing of every page in a book. At times it is a minimal amount of time, but when you add up an addition minute printing each page of a 300 page book, 2 internal passes for proof reading and editing, and 3 rounds to a client for approval you have added about 1,800 minutes or 30 hours to a project. From my experience with InDesign with a graphics heavy book you will be adding a lot more than 1 minute per page for printing as compared to the same page printed through Quark with an OPI workflow. However Adobe has been listening to the industry and making changes to InDesign at a steller pace when compared to the upgrade cycle that Quark works on, so they might have a solution to this problem coming out within the next 12 months.
InDesign's second major flaw is its speed. At least on OS 9.2 it gets bogged down pretty fast even on a dual Gig Mac once you start adding layers, and using the effects that make InDesign attractive as a page layout program. Sure you can do most of the same things using Quark (with Xtensions), Illustrator, and Photoshop. But to get some of these compositions it is a lot easier to do them in InDesign rather than going back and forthe between photoshop, illustrator, and Quark. but this advantage is lost when screen redraws and printing eat away the amount of time that you would have saved from compositing the work in Photoshop, importing it into Quark, and burning your shodows using Shadowcaster.
Some of these companies are looking into other solutions as well, such as FrameMaker. My point is that these large publishers see the need to have an XML workflow which will sve them money in producing and releasing both a print and online version of the same content. They are looking into ways to achieve this right now. The switch will probably not be seen right away, but it is coming, and when all is said and done I imagine that most of the publishers will come to the same conclusion on which program/workflow works best. When this decision is made, it will trickle down from the large publishers to the companies and freelancers that they outsource their production to, and possibly to their outside writers and editors as well.
Now I dont know what the newspapers and magazine publishers are doing in this regard. I imagine that they are looking into it as well. Their buisness needs are different than book publishers. The life of their production files is a lot shorter than the 6-8+ years that we need to keep, and revise files for in book publishing. Yet their deadlines are also a lot shorter, a book can take as much as 2 years to move from planning through design and production and finally coming off the press. Quark does stand a shot at loosing the book publishing buisness, and even if that is 10-25% of the total design market, that is still a lot of revenue that is not going into Quarks bank accounts. I would say that a more realistic view is that Quark stands a good chance at loosing 25-50% of their current buisness over the next 5 years due to their long record of poor customer service, slow and bug ridden updates.
Considering that Steve Jobs only owns two shares of Apple stock, I often doubt if Apple has the best interests of its shareholders in mind. Steve Jobs compensation for 2001 was over $80 million and Apple's net income was only $61 million. Investors of Apple Computer are usually fans of the company rather than "real" investors as Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business. Apple's own board of directors was just voted among the eight worst in America by BusinessWeek. Apple's board is primarily set up so that Mr. Jobs has carte blanche to the company--and very few questions are asked. (When shareholders object to company protocol he basically tells them in so many words to go **** themselves).
If you run into Mr. Jobs at MWSF, ask him why he wasn't able to give his dedicated, hard-working employees a Christmas bonus for the past two years while he fuels up his new Gulfstream on the company's tab.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While I generally consider CEO compensation to be too high in america, you are definately misleading people. That $80 million figure includes a gulf stream jet. Do you have any idea who uses this jet and how often?
'Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business.'
Does anybody think Indesign 3 will feature the key improvements to workflow for the big printers to adopt Indesign over Xpress?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can tell you that I've switched to Indesign 2 and I'm not looking back. I know plenty of others who have. The design freely promo with Apple did it for them. I don't consider Quark anymore. Indesign does everything I need out of a pro desktop application.
When the 970 comes, Quark will release a mostly 32-bit carbon product, while Indesign will be mostly be 64-bit Cocoa.
Although rumours are quite silent these days, I think it's pretty much clear that _no_ G5 or whatever is coming any time soon. 7457, yes, other than that: Nope. And PowerMacs will be updated AFTER MWSF 2003, like they've done it after MWNY 2002.
iMacs, iPods, eMacs. That will be it for the hardware department. I'm interested very much in the software that will appear, though...
Hardware will be more interesting in Summer, because the 970 won't be available (yet) by MWNY (BO?) or even a month later.
FrameMaker _used_ to completely rock. It hasn't been updated practically since Adobe bought Aldus.
The features I use(d) have all been migrated into InDesign. I don't know that I'd expect Adobe to ever Carbonize Frame. Sad but seemingly true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
FrameMaker has nothing to do with Adobe buying Aldus - FrameMaker was originally made by a company called Frame.
Adobe asked customers what they wanted in version 7 of FrameMaker, and they also asked if they should make the interface like the other Adobe apps, and the answer to the last question was a big No!
Also remember that most FrameMaker users aren't Mac users.
<strong>This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
<blahblah snipped>
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How so? I know a lot of people are switching to InDesign. I talked to a few at the Typo Berlin and they _do_ switch. The german magazine Focus and Focus Money are both made with InDesign, for example.
Quark is only preferred by lazy over 30 DTP people who are to lazy to switch, because they are used to Quark 4. But most of those I know didn't even look into Quark 5 yet ("Oh, is there a 5 now?").
At schools the graphic designers and DTP people of tomorrow, however, are learning both InDesign and Quark and like InDesign more (if not more for it's integration with photoshop/illustrator).
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you think Adobe is stupid enough to not have learned from their failings? Geez, wake up. Adobe is taking it very serious with InDesign, they listen to their big customers, make frequent released with useful additions and they are spreading the word (showing off InDesign at trade shows, etc). Just because you think Quark still has 99% it doesn't mean that's true. InDesign is being adapted very rapidly and Quark is only bubble-talk lately, with nothing to show.
And you think Adobe is stupid enough to not have learned from their failings? Geez, wake up. Adobe is taking it very serious with InDesign, they listen to their big customers, make frequent released with useful additions and they are spreading the word (showing off InDesign at trade shows, etc). Just because you think Quark still has 99% it doesn't mean that's true. InDesign is being adapted very rapidly and Quark is only bubble-talk lately, with nothing to show.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
<strong>
Actually they're implementing AppleScript in a big way.
InDesign supports AppleScript in a big way, and the current versions of Photoshop and ImageReady are showing the beginning of AppleScript integration.
I would guess that the next version af Acrobat will have a better AppleScript implementation - perhaps I should ask around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Clive, I would have to agree with JLL on this. Although I have not done a lot with InDesign scripting, I have been playing around with Illustrator 10 scripting, and it is powerfull. It is a little perculure (sp) but so is Quark. InDesign looks to have as comprehensive of a scripting dictionary as Quarks, however it will cost money (time) in learning the proper syntax to convert all of those Quark workflow scripts to InDesign.
From looking at the latest versions of Adobe's products it looks like they are finally seeing the light about AppleScript, ie, it dosnt take a programer, who dosnt know what needs done or how to implement it, to write what needs to be done, a designer or production worker can do it with a small learning curve and save big $ for the company. I can still remember my first AppleScript experience. We were in a crunc time on a big text book, working 12+ hour shifts to get the PS files on disk to send out to a number of prepress houses for film. We needed to identify the plate color for each seperated file, and within relatively little time, and an AppleScript for dummies book I wrote a script to analyze the post script file, and rename it based on the plate color. This got me a $1.00 an hour raise. Although I dont use it much as a designer now, I see its value in workflow, as well as its under-use and under-appreciated value. It is a great tool, and unlike VB, JavaScript, etc. it is relatively easy to learn, and extreamly powerfull.
<strong>
There are no indications that Apple is trying to increase market share. Increased market share does not guarantee profitability. Market share in itself presents ups and downs within a business strategy, and I'm not convinced Apple's game plan at this point is to increase market share.
As far as there being "two" main reasons that PC users buy Macintosh, there is, actually only ONE reason, which I may reveal later but is beyond the scope of this post. You may want to search for the topic "Why don't PC users buy Macintosh" under any number of fora to see the multitude of answers being given.
If I remember Steve himself stated that he though Apple could achieve double their current market share. That is not to say that they are actively trying to reach that at this time. I would personally say that Apple is setting the groundwork for a growth in market share. This can be seen in their purchase of Shake (professional), the release of Xserve, iPod, Rendevue, iSync, the other iApps, and the Switch campaign (consumer, though I think that it is too early for this advertising given the current limitations of the hardware). But I would say, looking at the long term picture that Apple is looking to increase market share in a very big way, probably in larger numbers than Steve himselfe stated was possibl earlier this year.
In my opinion there was a big push for OS X adoption. First there was FreeHand, then InDesign, Illstrator, and finally Photoshop. Photoshop held a sugnificant psychological benchmark, becouse it is so integrated in most workflows, weather for the web, video, or print. Adobe timed it about right, not letting the new kids on the block get too much ahead, yet coming out with a program that didnt have the flaws that PS 5 had. Illustrator 10 has some of the same workflow/print production flaws that 9 had, but with the increasing adoption of pdf workflows this is becoming overcome. Quark is the last of these psycological berriors for Apple to overcome, so it is getting a lot of attention right now.
Quark is in a delicat position right now. Their dominance is bieng threatened by Adobe, yet for the past few years they have been trying to create new programs that expand their influence (imedia, their package design program, etc) . They have always been "sloppy" at following Apples programing guidelines, this is one of the reasons that I have heard gven for problems that arose with 4.0, and no doubt it has raised broblems with a move to OS X. They have also been playing a fine line between supporting ther xtension developers and end users who use AppleScript for workflow management and integration. I remember some concern raised a number of years ago about how extensive AppleScript support was in Quark was stealing potential revenue from Xtension developers, yet it is one of the cornerstones to the success of Quark along with the Xtensable qualaties of the program.
Today we see a new arena coming into play. In the near future printing a book will not be enough, you will also need it on line. pdf is a nice delivery tool, but it is not enough. XML promises much, but the tools are not up to the needs of the publishing industry. The company that offers the best solutions, programs, Xtension, and Scripting, to bring about the promis of XML will will the big industries in the long run. Smaller shops, and Advertising agencies can use whatever suits them. They are not producing a 100 page magazinge a month, a daily paper, or a hunred books 500+ page books a year. It is relatively painless for them to adopt part of their workflow to fit their clients needs when they are doing a 10 page brochure, or put the burden of troubleshooting the files to the prepress house. In the end, the large publishing houses will set the industry tend due to the inertia of their size and needs will create once they come to a conclustion of the best way to deal with their buisness needs. From my personal experience of working for a number of these publishers over the past 7 years the will all come to similar conclusions, and settle on either Quark or InDesign. The Mac platform has a major advantage, but I wouldnt say that it is rock solid at the moment. The industry is entering a stage of flux right now, and as someone who has had some part of looking into the solutions, I would say that the future is pretty cloudy right now.
<strong>
If I remember Steve himself stated that he though Apple could achieve double their current market share. {...}</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if Apple makes a "dent" by doubling it's current market share (~10%) it's not going to make a difference. The PC has become sugar water. Only a 50/50 handshake at this point will mean anything to the consumer. Until then, we're stuck in a revolving door business design.
Unfortunately for the LAUB, Apple will always be the minority as a proprietary system. Even if the 970 saves Apple from its current hardware woes, the rest of the world is running on x86. Development for that ISA will always come first. (Thus, a 50/50 handshake is the only solution to ensure "even" application development.)
Great reply. I don't disagree that the publishing business is in a flux right now. What I am saying is that whether or not Quark is available on X or not is not keeping people from buying Power Macs.
I know this first hand, my best friend is the West Coast Director for a nationwide Apple Specialist. He sells hundreds of macs at a time, to agencies all over California as well as entertainment companies like the one I work for who use Quark every minuuteof their day. Do any of these people care whether or not Quark or Photoshop is available on X when they are deciding on these machines? NO. Why? Because when Quark for X comes out it will run on whatever they buy. My point? Apple's claim of people waiting to buy Power Macs because of Quark being unavailable on X is a smokescreen for what the real problem is.
Economy + poor hardware upgrades = Low Power Mac sales.
My friend actually had an agency choose iMacs over Power Macs. Includes display...not much slower than Power Macs...SDRAM cheaper than DDR that is NOT EVEN BEING USED.
<strong> Quark is in a delicat position right now. Their dominance is bieng threatened by Adobe, {...} </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
The next time you go to a magazine stand, like a large Hudson News in New York City, and have access to a few thousand titles to choose from, realize this: all of them were produced with Quark Xpress.
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. That's why they're holding off and making deals with Microsoft. InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.
Please keep in mind that Apple is a "public" company. Meaning that they have to watch what they say. Apple is NOT going to come out and say that slow Power Mac sales are because the processors are slow.....[QUOTE]
Actually, they are going to say that...as they detailed in their 10-K filing a couple of weeks ago.
That warning tells me that the problem isn't going to be fixed anytime between now and the next annual report.
<strong>
Apple exists to turn an increase on shareholders money...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering that Steve Jobs only owns two shares of Apple stock, I often doubt if Apple has the best interests of its shareholders in mind. Steve Jobs compensation for 2001 was over $80 million and Apple's net income was only $61 million. Investors of Apple Computer are usually fans of the company rather than "real" investors as Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business. Apple's own board of directors was just voted among the eight worst in America by BusinessWeek. Apple's board is primarily set up so that Mr. Jobs has carte blanche to the company--and very few questions are asked. (When shareholders object to company protocol he basically tells them in so many words to go **** themselves).
If you run into Mr. Jobs at MWSF, ask him why he wasn't able to give his dedicated, hard-working employees a Christmas bonus for the past two years while he fuels up his new Gulfstream on the company's tab.
<strong>My friend actually had an agency choose iMacs over Power Macs. Includes display...not much slower than Power Macs...SDRAM cheaper than DDR that is NOT EVEN BEING USED.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belive me, the DDR RAM in Power Macs IS being used.
Empires bigger than Quark's have fallen though.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>...the rest of the world is running on x86. Development for that ISA will always come first...</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a bit of a fallacy -- developers don't develop for an ISA, they develop for a platform. Even if Apple's hardware was x86 based, developers would still have to do 99% of the porting work because Apple uses a different operating system. There is so little assembly code in use these days as to be irrelevant -- it is almost equivalent to the difference between PentiumIV and Athlon (given 3DNow! vs SSE and the different optimizations that are required). Developer adoption is not a reason for Apple to switch to x86; quite the opposite, actually.
<strong>
This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
The next time you go to a magazine stand, like a large Hudson News in New York City, and have access to a few thousand titles to choose from, realize this: all of them were produced with Quark Xpress.
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. That's why they're holding off and making deals with Microsoft. InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
MacLuv, my statement may have been a bit strong. But the fact remains that there are large publishers that are seriosuly looking into InDesign workflows right now as a replacement for Quark. I'm not just making this statement without some knowledge of what is going on, I work for a large production/design/editorial company that produces books for some of the largest book publishers in the US. Our company has been asked to look into InDesign by a number of these companies and they are currently doing small scale projects using InDesign. This is in an industry that will probably never adobt Quark 5 on a large scale and is just finishing a migration to Qark 4.1. There is a need/desire for these publishers to have material that is easy to repurpose, and XML is bieng touted as the way to do this. These companies will spend the money neccessary to upgrade their workflows to integrate XML into them as soon as a workable solution is on the market.
Having looked at InDesign with this in mind for my company, I have some opinions on how suited it is for this task. Right now it has some major drawbacks. In particular, due to its "local" flattening of "pages" it cannot be used with the OPI workflow that my company uses. This adds time to every stage in the production and proofing of every page in a book. At times it is a minimal amount of time, but when you add up an addition minute printing each page of a 300 page book, 2 internal passes for proof reading and editing, and 3 rounds to a client for approval you have added about 1,800 minutes or 30 hours to a project. From my experience with InDesign with a graphics heavy book you will be adding a lot more than 1 minute per page for printing as compared to the same page printed through Quark with an OPI workflow. However Adobe has been listening to the industry and making changes to InDesign at a steller pace when compared to the upgrade cycle that Quark works on, so they might have a solution to this problem coming out within the next 12 months.
InDesign's second major flaw is its speed. At least on OS 9.2 it gets bogged down pretty fast even on a dual Gig Mac once you start adding layers, and using the effects that make InDesign attractive as a page layout program. Sure you can do most of the same things using Quark (with Xtensions), Illustrator, and Photoshop. But to get some of these compositions it is a lot easier to do them in InDesign rather than going back and forthe between photoshop, illustrator, and Quark. but this advantage is lost when screen redraws and printing eat away the amount of time that you would have saved from compositing the work in Photoshop, importing it into Quark, and burning your shodows using Shadowcaster.
Some of these companies are looking into other solutions as well, such as FrameMaker. My point is that these large publishers see the need to have an XML workflow which will sve them money in producing and releasing both a print and online version of the same content. They are looking into ways to achieve this right now. The switch will probably not be seen right away, but it is coming, and when all is said and done I imagine that most of the publishers will come to the same conclusion on which program/workflow works best. When this decision is made, it will trickle down from the large publishers to the companies and freelancers that they outsource their production to, and possibly to their outside writers and editors as well.
Now I dont know what the newspapers and magazine publishers are doing in this regard. I imagine that they are looking into it as well. Their buisness needs are different than book publishers. The life of their production files is a lot shorter than the 6-8+ years that we need to keep, and revise files for in book publishing. Yet their deadlines are also a lot shorter, a book can take as much as 2 years to move from planning through design and production and finally coming off the press. Quark does stand a shot at loosing the book publishing buisness, and even if that is 10-25% of the total design market, that is still a lot of revenue that is not going into Quarks bank accounts. I would say that a more realistic view is that Quark stands a good chance at loosing 25-50% of their current buisness over the next 5 years due to their long record of poor customer service, slow and bug ridden updates.
<strong>
Some of these companies are looking into other solutions as well, such as FrameMaker. </strong><hr></blockquote>
FrameMaker _used_ to completely rock. It hasn't been updated practically since Adobe bought Aldus.
The features I use(d) have all been migrated into InDesign. I don't know that I'd expect Adobe to ever Carbonize Frame. Sad but seemingly true.
1. Didn't Quark conquer the big Printers first and then the small printer folk followed suit?
Isn't Adobe targeting the big press boys now? With training and seminars?
2. If Indesign gets the 'flattening' and 'production' issues sorted with cabable print/internet output...then that leaves
3. Indesign 3 and a 970 to handle the 'features' and 'speed' in a double whammy to Quark X?
I've not used Indesign or Quark in a meaningful way.
Does anybody think Indesign 3 will feature the key improvements to workflow for the big printers to adopt Indesign over Xpress?
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Considering that Steve Jobs only owns two shares of Apple stock, I often doubt if Apple has the best interests of its shareholders in mind. Steve Jobs compensation for 2001 was over $80 million and Apple's net income was only $61 million. Investors of Apple Computer are usually fans of the company rather than "real" investors as Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business. Apple's own board of directors was just voted among the eight worst in America by BusinessWeek. Apple's board is primarily set up so that Mr. Jobs has carte blanche to the company--and very few questions are asked. (When shareholders object to company protocol he basically tells them in so many words to go **** themselves).
If you run into Mr. Jobs at MWSF, ask him why he wasn't able to give his dedicated, hard-working employees a Christmas bonus for the past two years while he fuels up his new Gulfstream on the company's tab.</strong><hr></blockquote>
While I generally consider CEO compensation to be too high in america, you are definately misleading people. That $80 million figure includes a gulf stream jet. Do you have any idea who uses this jet and how often?
'Apple is one of the worst run companies in the history of business.'
Are you a complete moron? Hello? Enron? Tyco?
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Me thinks you need to overstate your case less.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: dfiler ]</p>
<strong>
Does anybody think Indesign 3 will feature the key improvements to workflow for the big printers to adopt Indesign over Xpress?
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can tell you that I've switched to Indesign 2 and I'm not looking back. I know plenty of others who have. The design freely promo with Apple did it for them. I don't consider Quark anymore. Indesign does everything I need out of a pro desktop application.
When the 970 comes, Quark will release a mostly 32-bit carbon product, while Indesign will be mostly be 64-bit Cocoa.
iMacs, iPods, eMacs. That will be it for the hardware department. I'm interested very much in the software that will appear, though...
Hardware will be more interesting in Summer, because the 970 won't be available (yet) by MWNY (BO?) or even a month later.
<strong>
FrameMaker _used_ to completely rock. It hasn't been updated practically since Adobe bought Aldus.
The features I use(d) have all been migrated into InDesign. I don't know that I'd expect Adobe to ever Carbonize Frame. Sad but seemingly true.</strong><hr></blockquote>
FrameMaker has nothing to do with Adobe buying Aldus - FrameMaker was originally made by a company called Frame.
Adobe asked customers what they wanted in version 7 of FrameMaker, and they also asked if they should make the interface like the other Adobe apps, and the answer to the last question was a big No!
Also remember that most FrameMaker users aren't Mac users.
[ 12-27-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>This is a common fallacy--that Quark is being "threatened" by Adobe.
<blahblah snipped>
Adobe won't be able to threaten Quark until Quark releases a new version on OS X. </strong><hr></blockquote>
How so? I know a lot of people are switching to InDesign. I talked to a few at the Typo Berlin and they _do_ switch. The german magazine Focus and Focus Money are both made with InDesign, for example.
Quark is only preferred by lazy over 30 DTP people who are to lazy to switch, because they are used to Quark 4. But most of those I know didn't even look into Quark 5 yet ("Oh, is there a 5 now?").
At schools the graphic designers and DTP people of tomorrow, however, are learning both InDesign and Quark and like InDesign more (if not more for it's integration with photoshop/illustrator).
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>InDesign is nice, but Quark is the industry standard for producing 99.9% of publications in the entire world. To change an infrastructure like that is going to take a lot more than InDesign. There are no new publishing formats that need InDesign, and thus there are no arguments that can be made to the decision makers on spending n$billion to upgrade to a system for no reason. InDesign has a long long way to go to make even the slightest dent in the publishing industry--and Adobe has tried many times to compete with Quark with different products--and failed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you think Adobe is stupid enough to not have learned from their failings? Geez, wake up. Adobe is taking it very serious with InDesign, they listen to their big customers, make frequent released with useful additions and they are spreading the word (showing off InDesign at trade shows, etc). Just because you think Quark still has 99% it doesn't mean that's true. InDesign is being adapted very rapidly and Quark is only bubble-talk lately, with nothing to show.
<strong>
And you think Adobe is stupid enough to not have learned from their failings? Geez, wake up. Adobe is taking it very serious with InDesign, they listen to their big customers, make frequent released with useful additions and they are spreading the word (showing off InDesign at trade shows, etc). Just because you think Quark still has 99% it doesn't mean that's true. InDesign is being adapted very rapidly and Quark is only bubble-talk lately, with nothing to show.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Name twenty major publications that use InDesign.