Switching to Quark? Help me talk my boss out of it!

[abdennis13]

Hi everyone,

I work for a publishing group with a staff of 20 currently using Indesign/Incopy CS5.

I have proposed finally upgrading to creative cloud this year and gathered the financial info for this switch as well as the various new features that are relevant to our workflow.

There is some resistance to the subscription model of CC and "Why don't we switch back to Quark?" has been tossed around in meetings.

This seems like a non-starter because even if we drop InDesign for Quark, don't we still need Photoshop and Illustrator?

Are there any professional design firms, publishers, etc. who use GIMP and Inkscape in a professional environment?

Is there a Quark plugin that would be the equivalent of InCopy?

If not, all editors would need to have Quark as well as the design/production staff.

I have written dozens of scripts to automate various parts of our workflow using CS5.

Updating these to CC requires minimal tinkering (I have my own subscription so i was able to test them). Converting them all to Quark seems daunting.

[BobLevine]

Quark has an excellent Facebook group. I suggest joining it and asking your questions there.

[Bill Silbert]

You are right about continuing to need Photoshop and Illustrator which means you would still need a Creative Cloud subscription which includes InDesign. That makes getting Quark an extra expense.

[abdennis13]

That's how to looked to me too. I can't find any info about GIMP that indicates it's a reasonable option in a professional setting.

[BobLevine]

That’s because it’s not.

There are viable alternatives, though. But it will require a heavy investment in training and lost productivity and will leave you in the same situation when it’s time to upgrade again.

[abdennis13]

Bob, what would be a viable alternative? I really don't want to make this switch but I want to show my boss the options realistically.

[BobLevine]

I think MW will agree that the FB group is a really good, and frankly a far more appropriate place to gather information.

[MW Design]

I use QXP, ID et al.

I rarely use PS and when I do it is an older version. I mostly use PhotoLine as my image editor of choice. I also mostly use AI as a glorified file converter if/when I need to supply drawings back as an AI file. I prefer to use a more efficient vector editor/creation application for the types of vector drawings/illustrations I do. YMMV.

The up-front software costs are one thing. The man-hour costs are on-going up until everyone is up to speed and those costs are more than replacing your current software.

But this exact type of thing, the costs of software and man-hours in training/support, is what happened to shops and agencies that switched from a Q-centric work-flow to an ID work-flow once upon a time, too.

There are large & small agencies, publishers, etc., that use a Q-centric publishing flow. Somehow it seems to work for them ;^) As an independent, I have done work for agencies, publishers and even for other independents that don't use an Adobe-centric work-flow since the late 1980s. To me it's not a big deal to have feet in different "camps."

Because I have always owned my own shop, I haven't had to face this issue as an employee. The best you can do is, without fear and/or emotion attached to it, is to lay out and even-handed review of your current processes, the costs (all the types of costs) associated with the choice management is going to make. Then just dig in and do the work with whatever their decision is. It's all doable.

Mike

[abdennis13]

Thank you for your perspective. I think a large part of their concern is cost, and I don't see that switching is offering much of a cost savings, if any.

[MW Design]

Yep, the closed QXP Facebook group has a wide variety of people with all sorts of experience. And that is where we should discuss the nitty-gritty of actually using Q and or even discuss some of the particulars.

As regards cost...I use CS6 for the most part and do the subscription thing when required. It sounds like where you work is also on a previous, non-CC version.

From a cost-benefit perspective, they are looking at going form something that has their ROI for some time, to something with on-going costs. And while a true cost-analysis of CC with constantly upgrading QXP is pretty darn comparable, I doubt a business that is currently using 5 year-old software (or older, if my assumption is correct) will update Q on a consistent basis, either. The main benefit of the perpetual license model is exactly what seems to have been the way in which the place you work at has operated.

In any case, I am getting slightly uncomfortable. I'll let the others go further down the Adobe--only road.

If you would like to send me a private message I could give you both my email address and of someone at Q for particular discussions. I hope you understand.

Best regards, Mike

[BobLevine]

Thanks, Mike.

I think we've taken this as far as appropriate for this forum so I'm going to lock this before we go too far down a rabbit hole.