Will InDesign fade into obscurity like Quark Express (sic)? - LOCKED

[TonightWeDineInHELL]

Do you remember way back when Quark acted like they owned the planet (because they kinda did) and ignored the desires of their customers? Do you remember what happened? Adobe created InDesign 1.0... it was buggy, crashed all the time, was full of problems, and everyone switched from Quark to use it.  Why did they switch? Well, Indesign offered many of the  features users had been demanding from Quark for years.  AND these same users were angry... angry at Quark, because to continue as professional designers meant they had to put up with Quark's obnoxious hey-what-other-software-are-you-gonna-use attitude.

Now, fast forward to today. Design professionals are (again) angry. They can't continue to use CS6 with it's unfixed OS incompatibles. They want a perpetual license for InDesign and don't want to pay Adobe until doomsday, just to be able to open their files. Adobe's attitude? "Hey-what-other-software-are-you-gonna-use?"  These angry customers are ripe for the picking. If a young eager software company released even a half-decent layout application (with a perpetual license) that could open .indd files, it could be game-over for InDesign.  So, what do you all think? Will InDesign fade into obscurity like Quark Express?

[Derek Cross]

If a business can't afford a couple of dollars a day for a vital tool, maybe they're in the wrong business. And, for occasional users, there's the monthly subscription model where they just pay for the month(s) they need the tools.

[richardk32]

That's a time line quibble, Bob, since Adobe sold Pagemaker 6 and 6.5 for nearly four years after it's purchase of Aldus, while it continued work on InDesign, but I'll grant you it.

By that time I had long since taken Stony Brook (and by extension many of the other SUNY schools) over to Quark, after (as you noted) the spaghetti that was PM 4, 5, and 6 made it impossible to work in. We bailed at 5.

Ironically, it was QXP 4, 5, and 6 that forced me to take the College Board (probably influencing many of the 2700 colleges and universities we worked with) to InDesign CS2.

And now Adobe is doing the same thing to their customers that Quark and Aldus did before them.

I suddenly have a Romeo Void ear bug. <grin>

[BobLevine]

I’m not going to argue that the subscription model is right everyone, but if you do the math on upgrading every single version it is cheaper to subscribe. If you skipped versions, congratulations; you are one of the people responsible for this.

You can also subscribe on a month to month basis so if you stop you can always re-up to work on something.

Rather than rehashing all of this, I wrote a blog post about three years ago. Nothing beyond the subscription numbers has changed.

http://boblevine.us/why-creative-cloud-subscription-software-is-here-to-stay/

[Jongware]

Bob Levine wrote:

> I’m not going to argue that the subscription model is right everyone, but if you do the math on upgrading every single version it is cheaper to subscribe. If you skipped versions, congratulations; you are one of the people responsible for this...

But Bob, consider this: a good reason to buy a new version is because it has more useful features. Of course, as you mention elsethread, there are some new features that some people find indispensable. But I do not!

So, with the ol' "you buy it or you don't" model, I could happily skip any new version that does not contain useful new stuff for me. I kept on using that old version and thus saved money. With the subscription model, on the other hand, I am paying for that new version (and, of course, receiving it) whether or not it contains anything of use for me!

[BobLevine]

I’m afraid you’re missing my point.

It costs Adobe millions of dollars to develop software. If people don’t buy it, it still cost them that money.

[Abambo]

BobLevine wrote:

It costs Adobe millions of dollars to develop software. If people don’t buy it, it still cost them that money.

Yes! But if Adobe adds features that are of no use for me, it costs my cash for something I do not want!

Ever bought a car with features you didn't need? Did cost your money! The car builder on the other side needs to pay for the development of options you do not buy!

The point with Adobe however is, that you do not have a choice with their cash cow software. It's however legitime for Adobe doing so. Customers can always decide using MS Word, publisher or similar as an InDesign replacement.

You could even use free Latex for typesetting! It's great to have a choice...

[Jongware]

If they spend millions of dollars investing in features I just don't need, I could always opt to not buy it.

You are ignoring the reverse: if they add features I can use in my work, then I will pay for it. With the subscription model, I would be paying up front and have to await what I get for my cash. ("Up front" - yes. Previously, Adobe spent that money, and then they'd have to convince people to buy their product. They would do so by making it desirable. This is called a "consumer's market". I don't know what market the subscription model is called.)

[BobLevine]

You just made the point for this model. They can cater to niche markets for an update without worrying about sales numbers because only a small number of people would be interested. Maybe you get a feature you like this time and some other small group gets something they like in the next one.

But it’s even better here because it could be something you really want but not enough to pay extra for.

This is an evolutionary time for software. The revolution is over.

[Peter Spier]

BobLevine wrote:

Maybe you get a feature you like this time and some other small group gets something they like in the next one.

But it’s even better here because it could be something you really want but not enough to pay extra for.

Except that's not the way it's been working, is it? Where are the long document improvements that users have asked for for years? There's been nothing new for my workflow since CS5 that would make me pay for an upgrade.

New and improved features are all in the areas requested by large user groups or flashy new technology.

[BobLevine]

No. But I’m talking in generalities and from a business standpoint.

I’m sold on the model and think it’s the best way forward, but at this point I’d love a reset where we get a version that has nothing in it but bug fixes and performance enhancements.

This would be a great use of the subscription model because everyone would get it without having to pay extra for it. The days of needing whiz bang features that demo well (I give you liquid layouts and the content collection tools) but have very little in the way of usefulness in real life are over.

[jane-e]

BobLevine wrote:

Maybe you get a feature you like this time and some other small group gets something they like in the next one.

Very occasionally after I teach a class I will get a comment from a student that I taught them something he or she did not need to know. And I spent too way too much time on it—a whole hour sometimes. Nevermind that the all the other students in class had previously said they needed that very topic! (The unuseful topic varies, so I am keeping it generic.)

As a trainer, I see that people do use the software in many different ways, and for myself sometimes I have found that there are things I think I don't need until suddenly—I do. And then I am glad they are there.

[maker_ryan]

BobLevine  wrote

This is an evolutionary time for software. The revolution is over.

That's deep, man.

[richardk32]

I thought I was very clear why this came up.

I've read your articles for years, Bob, and generally agree with your observations, but what harm could come to Adobe by offering both models - a continuing, you're up to the minute subscription system, and a reset the clock every few years, here's the new baseline, outright license option? With the second, Adobe gets to recoup the money they haven't received from me for the past three years without the hassle of ongoing support, and I get the piece of mind of knowing that I won't be screwed if my internet provider goes down on the 31st, or Adobe inexplicably fails to reauthorize a paid up account (tell me no vendor has ever done this to you.)

BTW, I have licensed copies of every CS Collection from 1 through 6 sitting on my shelf for my use, just as I made sure there was a licensed copy for every designer in my employ, plus one for every floating workstation. I'd long since have one for CS7, if it existed. Insinuations to contrary are uncalled for, Bob.

Rich

[BobLevine]

I tend to use the generic “you” quite a bit. No offense was intended.

[rob day]

I get the piece of mind of knowing that I won't be screwed if my internet provider goes down on the 31st

You don't need an internet connection to run the cloud apps—you only need a connection once, anytime during the month:

Adobe Creative Cloud | Software and services for creative professionals

CS5 won't reliably run on my current OS. It's old but not that old, so I'm not sure where the piece of mind is with a perpetual license.

[Peter Spier]

rob day wrote:

I get the piece of mind of knowing that I won't be screwed if my internet provider goes down on the 31st

You don't need an internet connection to run the cloud apps—you only need a connection once, anytime during the month:

And there is supposed to be a grace period to accommodate temporarily lost connectivity.

[jane-e]

TonightWeDineInHELL wrote:

Now, fast forward to today. Design professionals are (again) angry. They can't continue to use CS6 with it's unfixed OS incompatibles. They want a perpetual license for InDesign and don't want to pay Adobe until doomsday, just to be able to open their files. Adobe's attitude? "Hey-what-other-software-are-you-gonna-use?" These angry customers are ripe for the picking. If a young eager software company released even a half-decent layout application (with a perpetual license) that could open .indd files, it could be game-over for InDesign. So, what do you all think? Will InDesign fade into obscurity like Quark Express?

People can only conjecture, of course, and that is what I am about to do here. I have seen Ventura Publisher, QuarkXPress, and PageMaker all fade into obscurity when better software came out. I loved them all at one time. And who is to say that won't happen again to InDesign in the future? Not me. Maybe its day will come.

But anytime soon? No, I don't see it. There is nothing on the horizon that is better. InDesign rocks and keeps getting better. I don't see a "lot" of angry customers like you say that you do—not to the extent that I did with QuarkXPress. I do see a few who are very vocal. But almost all of the people I talk to have a passion for InDesign because it is awesome.

Also, remember that in the beginning InDesign could open Quark files, then Quark put a stop to it. So I don't know if opening InDesign files with other software is something to expect or not. It's anyone's guess (except, of course, fro the engineers at Adobe).

I can't use any of the versions that I still have of Ventura Publisher or QuarkXPress or PageMaker because they are not compatible with my current Operating System and hardware. For me, I found it best to move forward.

My 2¢.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but you did ask us what we think and this is my own personal opinion!

Best wishes to you

[Peter Spier]

I also hate the subscription model (and I don't do my personal work in subscription versions so I don't get caught in that bind), but I don't expect Adobe to pour money into upgrading old versions for new OS problems. If at some point there is something in a subscription version that is compelling for my workflow, or if I am forced into an OS upgrade that won't run my perpetual versions, I'll bite that bullet, but I'm old, mostly retired, print-centric and a Windows user, so I have very little worry that day is on the horizon.

[Abambo]

When I started my carear some 30 years ago, I worked on rented software for chip design. IAfter that I installed and managed rented finite elements programs. We switched to perpetual licenses with maintenance contract, when I found that on a four year period, that model was more cost effective. We returned to the subscription model years later, when again the situation changed. The subscription model is no invention of Adobe. Nor is the "cloud computing" model an invention of our time.

The subscription model is quite interesting. My budgetizing resulted in a similar cost factor then the previous perpetual model.

Personally, I have now a yearly budget. I do not have to justify a "heavy" invest each 2 to three years. I do not have to justify the additional acquisition of one or the other software. I work with the current versions and have no more compatibility issues for exchanges.

I can even sniff in programs that I would not have considered before. Only drawback is that when you stop the subscription, you stop the access to your data. I still have old Corel licenses I can use, if I need to open old files. This did happen at the beginning, when I decided to scrap Corel, but now we are at the point that I decided not to install that old software on our brand new machines.

Adobe is doing money with the subscription model. The customers accepted it. Why would they return to the old perpetual license?

[Scott Falkner]

A better example would be Illustrator. There are many problems with Illustrator, yet Adobe has shown no interest in correcting them. Bugs remain. Features only half-baked decades ago are never updated. Panels get more complicated. If you want to examine the stroke for an object there are at least 8 panels you might need to look in. If anything came along to compete with Illustrator at a professional level Adobe might decide it was with fixing. And by fixing I mean burning to the ground and starting from scratch, which is what they did with PageMaker.

[richardk32]

I could go on for hours, Scott.  When Adobe bought Macromedia, silly me, I thought "great, they'll merge in all the best features of Freehand into Illustrator." Instead, they unceremoniously killed it off. I stayed with Freehand as long as I possibly could, even though I owned the full Creative Suite. Competitively it was my secret weapon - I'd do the work in Freehand,  then export at the last moment to Illustrator and go to lunch, while others were still setting up their Illustrator file <grin>.

What's particularly inexcusable is that Adobe owns the code to Freehand. Just one small example, 20 years ago, I could draw a rectangle in Freehand, and then change each corner individually, or as a unit, to a rounded corner, convex or concave, of any radius, as many times as I wanted, or flatten the corner to a bevel. Only recently has Illustrator added a pale imitation of that simple feature.

[Abambo]

you still can use Freehand...if you are on Windows!

[korra.creative]

Windows 10 is great, if you put the money in a power house machine no device apple makes can match. BTW I'm not knocking apple I think they are great, but I'm saying don't knock windows, they are both great platforms, that achieve the same goal at the end of the day, one being more friendly to those who aren't advance users helping them avoid virus and limiting them to many restrictions, and the other being a power-house without limitations

[Abambo]

Who is user-friendly? And who limits the user? Both systems have their share of deciding what your system should look like. If you want freedom of decision, you need to change to Linux, with, unfortunately, no Adobe CC and a lot of other nice programs.

[jobro1]

One more thing I'd like to add (although others have touched on the same point): One of the biggest reasons Quark has faded into semi-obscurity is the company was unresponsive (and downright arrogant at times) to its customers. They were slow to upgrade to a PowerPC version, and when they did, they forced you to choose between 680X0 or PowerPC. Most software developers, including Adobe, included both versions in the same box. Years ago, when talking to a Quark representative about this, she replied "Well, we're not just ANY software company." And that was their attitude in a nutshell. It was like Lilly Tomlin (as the phone operator Ernestine) saying, "We don't have to care--we're the phone company!" Then they were slow about releasing an OS X version, and in the meantime InDesign just kept getting better. I was only too happy to switch to InDesign, which had features Quark XPress lacked, and users had been grousing about their absence for years. Quark dug its own grave, really. They are no longer arrogant or unresponsive, and the program now holds its own against InDesign, but I doubt they will ever enjoy anything close to the 90% market share they once did.