Why does Quark matter so much?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
John Manzione wrote this interesting article which for the most part I agree with.



<a href="http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=256_0_1_0_M"; target="_blank">http://www.macnet2.com/more.php?id=256_0_1_0_M</a>;



The vast majority of mac users or potential switchers from the PC world could care less about Quark or InDesign for that matter. I certainly fall into this camp.



I am always baffled at why so much emphasis seems to be placed on getting Quark to OS X.



Will this suddenly make the Smith family, still users of OS 9 or older jump to OS X in hysterical celebration?



If all the design/publishing/print houses all of sudden totally accepted InDesign and said "see ya later, Quark" would this give the Smith family the same buzz?



Of course not.



This is why Apple has to start making all of their new machines to boot into OS X only. When the Smith family's computer finally breaks down or they simply want a new one, they will then make the change. If they have the choice to stay in 9 they will. (They still might look for a used machine and life is good. Or they may switch to the PC.)



The vast population of mac users have very simple needs. Quark will not change this. It is unfortunate that the press places so much emphasis on this as do comments in Jobs' keynote as do so many of us here in these forums.



I obviously understand the importance of this issue for the people that are affected by it, but you are in a very small minority.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Reality:



    Power Mac's sales has been pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooor since two years ago due to the fu(king poor performance and high prices



    Apple needs to find something to blame to make them don't look that silly.



    But I do feel 'bad' about Apple....once Xpress 6 really comes and the PowerMac's sale still lags they will not have anymore excuses



    [ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 2 of 9
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    The problem with Quark is that about 80% of design bureaus have invested insane money in it. This investment has a lot of inertia. Imagine an advertisement company with 50 designers and page-layout operators. They spent some 30 kilobucks for QuarkXPress 3 many years ago. They spent 10 more updating it to version 4. And they've been bringing their files to a pre-press bureau for 10 years. The latter employs QXP specialists for years and spends kilobucks for QXP to keep up with their clients. Now imagine that most of the world lives in this manner. Unbelievable sums of money spent, hordes of QXP specialists - a generation of them - no one can ignore it.

    Thanks to Quark itself, slowly killing QXP for 5 years or so, the world still has a chance. Otherwise, there might be no Adobe by now.
  • Reply 3 of 9
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    For the price of a Quark license you can buy a cheap PC. And Quark CDs have been Windows/Mac dual install since 4.1. Apple has plenty to worry about on this front. Quark is ass.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    gordygordy Posts: 971member
    As much as I love dwelling in the RDF, Quark is just another Red Herring (read: distraction). Just like Office and Photoshop were in earlier times. Hmm, I wonder what the next app "holding us back" will be?
  • Reply 5 of 9
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by gordy:

    <strong>As much as I love dwelling in the RDF, Quark is just another Red Herring (read: distraction). Just like Office and Photoshop were in earlier times. Hmm, I wonder what the next app "holding us back" will be?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There's a little RDF to cover for the fact that the PowerMac line is so uncompetitive and the 970 isn't ready yet, but pinning Apple's PowerMac low sales on a non-native version of Quark isn't all smokescreen. It's what many publishing and design firms are waiting for -- I'm speaking from personal observation and experience here.



    Why move to to OS X until Office, Photoshop, *and* the page layout app that you rely on most is ready? It's not one or the other. It's all.



    p.s. All that said, if Quark can't deliver quickly enough -- or at all -- I see InDesign (very rightfully) being increasingly and seriously considered.



    [ 01-22-2003: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 9
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:

    <strong>if Quark can't deliver quickly enough -- or at all -- I see InDesign (very rightfully) being increasingly and seriously considered.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Mental inertia. I know many people who, looking at OS X for the first time, say: "Icons are too big. Looks childish. Too bright. I don't like it." There are people who say: "What InDesign? Does it do something Quark doesn't? Well, multiple undos? I don't need it. Autorestoring docs after a crash? So it does crash. Advanced layout options? What are you about?" and when they see InDesign is relatively slow, they vote for QuarkXPress with its disappearing scroll bars, white menus, one undo which you often don't have access to, no PostScript 3 support, preferences which just go bad for no good reason, etc. And they don't say they like it. They are used to it.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    People who don't see Quark as being important aren't in the publishing business. It's still the standard and as someoone pointed out inertia is a factor. It is the sole reason our advertising firm is still using OS 9. Since I do mostly electronic media rarely need to use Quark anymore (although it seems to work ok in classic?) I can get away with using OS X as my primary OS. But I'm the only one here using it. And 10.1.5 no less... no upgrade for me until the rest of the office moves to it



    The first poster speaks of the Smith family... but PowerMacs aren't aimed at the Smith family, they're aimed at Smith, Inc.



    That being said... Apples kidding itself if its blaming poor PowerMac sales entirely on Quark. CPU speeds aside, they need to look at lowering their prices and improving non-cpu components (faster busses, fw 800, usb 2, built-in airport, built-in bluetooth, 2 button mice, anything blah blah) if they want their sales to improve.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    akacakac Posts: 511member
    Faster busses require CPUs that can accept them.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    I didn't know Apple was blaming poor PowerMac sales on the lack of Quark. I don't recall a quarterly earning conference call in which Apple said, "and revenues on Power Mac sales are down this quarter because, well, Quark couldn't get its ass in gear and is holding everyone back."



    Sure, Steve heckled Quark in the keynote at MWSF, and rightfully so. But neither he nor Apple are really blaming them for poor Power Mac sales. I believe Apple was even quite open about why it has had poor Power Mac sales, admitting that their notebook lineup is great, and their desktops not so much.



    I wasn't really impressed by the article. I didn't read the whole thing, but I read enough to make me want to go do something else.



    At any rate, there are two sides to Apple: Consumer and Professional. All the press coverage you read about Quark, and all the forums you go to that bitch about it... these are places for "professional" users. The Smith family probably doesn't read the same publications that are writing about Quark. It doesn't matter to them. But professionals, and in turn the power users that buy the 'Power' lineup Apple sells, do want Quark. And while not all people around here necessarily use Quark, they know its importance in the professional industry, and in turn know that it needs to be in X to help the professional industry move over to X.



    So you and the flake who wrote the article are right... Quark isn't a big deal to consumers... which is precisely why the consumers don't really care or know about this issue. But the places you hang out at do. Because we're all professionals or advanced/power users. It matters to most of us.



    It's really a contextual thing...



    EDIT: CFO Fred Anderson did actually cite lack of XPress on OS X as a reason for lacking sales, but not the reason. I'm shocked he even mentioned it... but I wanted to correct myself here.



    [ 01-24-2003: Message edited by: M3D Jack ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.