I have never used anything from Quark. But what's wrong with having options to choose from?
If you had ever used, er I mean suffered through QuarkXPress you'd know the answer to that...
I'm interested to hear your experience with using QuarkXPress. I've been reading about the QuarkXPress feature set and it seems like a solid program. I don't need another layout program, but it's nice to know what's out there.
What I've now read about QuarkXPress is that it used to be very dominant in the 90's. There was no real competition. And Quark didn't bother to upgrade the program for about 5 years. Customer service was apparently also dreadful.
After that, competition started to rise (InDesign was released in 1999) and Quark lost a lot of its dominance between 2002/2006. InDesign had the advantage because it played 'nice' with the rest of the Adobe software. And InDesign included some features that Quark users were asking for but never got. Adobe also made sure major printing houses would accept InDesign files for printing.
Quark seems to have made some gross mistakes in the past, ignoring the wishes from customers and pretending everything is fine. This caused a lot of customers to leave and never come back. This all sounds too familiar at the moment...
However, Since 2007 Quark seems to be actively making up for it as far as I can tell. But just browsing the Internet and looking for data on the history of Quark is not going to give me the whole picture. So I'm interested in your story since you felt compelled to start a topic about it.
These days it looks like Quark is focusing its attention on digital media and digital publishing. Even if I might never use the software, I welcome that there is competition in this field.
We used QuarkXPress for a few years and found it a pretty capable bit of software - we all liked it - but then InDesign came along and showed everybody how well page layout software could be implemented.
Quark were very slow to react, thinking that their dominance was enough to keep their marketshare. When they eventually did start to respond and start matching some of InDesign's lead, they were already nearly out of the game.
Their (lack of) customer support was legendary, but so was their pricing. They were charging a phenomenal amount compared to InDesign. Some of their, relatively minor, point upgrades cost almost as much as a full version.
Simply put, they were arrogant and they left it too late... arrogant just like Adobe is over CC.
Adobe deserve to lose their marketshare now, for the same reasons Quark deserved to lose theirs back then.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
QuarkXPress - Not Moving to Subscription-based Pricing Model
Hi QuarkXPress users, we thought we’d post a quick note to assure you that Quark will continue to offer perpetual licenses of QuarkXPress and has no plans to move customers to monthly subscriptions like Adobe CC. It is important to us that QuarkXPress is accessible to designers of all types, that you get to decide if an upgrade has value to you, and that you receive free updates to QuarkXPress during the life of each version. We have extended our special upgrade pricing through June 30, 2013, which means users on ANY version of QuarkXPress – 3 through 8 – can upgrade to QuarkXPress 9 for the regular upgrade price. If you have questions, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit www.quark.com.
Corel - Looking for an alternative to Creative Cloud?
Corel is here to give you a choice. Check out our award-winning graphics, photo and video products below, discover helpful tips for making the switch, and learn about the many options Corel offers when it comes to purchasing your software.
You can even set your workspace to recreate the workspaces in Adobe products, making it an easier transition.
For a limited time, we're opening our upgrade path to users of Adobe Creative Suite, Photoshop standalone, Illustrator standalone or Premiere Pro standalone (version CS4 or later). Simply buy the upgrade version of any Corel product below, show proof of your Adobe purchase and we'll send you a serial number. Hurry! Offer expires Aug. 30, 2013.
Let's see... a featureset stuck in the '90s; a user interface stuck in the '80s; counterintuitive and cludgy/inefficient editing that usually involves at least four or five extra clicks than InDesign or any other modern app; poor color management implementation; a license server that constantly crashes (I think this is for site licenses only; the QLA server runs on our end, not on Quark's); poor typographic control compared to InDesign (heck, compared to PageMaker!)... the list goes on and on.
It's hard to cover everything, but when you work in InDesign for the majority of the day and then have to take a side trip into Quark it's like you've teleported back to 1996; I can't get the work done and get out of XPress fast enough, the entire experience is so annoying and counterproductive. Given how streamlined and efficient InDesign has become (it wasn't always that way, and there is still plenty of room for improvement) I'm continually shocked that Quark is still in business, that they still command enough market share to continue. The differences are that glaring, and there isn't a single thing I can think of that Quark does better than InDesign, or even vaguely as well. I'd probably prefer to work in the last version of PageMaker than any up-to-date version of Quark.
I've been using Quark since about 1994 or thereabouts, so it's not for lack of familiarity with the software (which IMO is most often the case when people on a forum say such-and-such a program sucks, or some other program blows another away, etc). Working in a high-volume prepress environment that has always supported all the Adobe apps, plus Quark, Freehand and Corel, you get to be very familiar with all of the programs -- including their assets and their failings -- in short order. If it weren't for the fact that we still receive native Quark files we'd have probably stopped supporting XPress while back.
- I've been using Quark since about 1994
- Working in a high-volume prepress environment
I have been using Quark for about the same timeline and as well had spent a number of years in "high-end" prepress. Does the client care much about whether you or they use inDesign or Quark as the paper rolls off the press, etc.? All I am saying is that its nice the competition is using Adobe's ignorance to offer options for Adobe customers.
I'm referring to receiving native files, which we still get a lot of and in many cases prefer, as we print a lot of packages that must adhere to specific dies,packaging constraints, etc. We routinely have to make pretty significant modifications to supplied files, and this is often easier to accomplish in the native app rather than editing a PDF. I can get my job done much faster, easier and with far less application and output headaches when I'm working on InDesign files than Quark, by an order of magnitude.
For my freelance design work I've never used Quark and wouldn't dream of it. Zero chance of that happening, no matter what the final resolution is to the Great Creative Cloud Fiasco Of 2013.
^ Yes we all have needs and preferences on software, workflows, output devices etc., I too have dealt with them all across platforms and within about every prepress workflow imaginable. You name the job type, process, outcome and I have experienced it under the highest volumes and constraints.
Great Adobe Creative Cloud Fiasco Of 2013.
Here is something we certainly agree on ;-)