Slashdot Mirror


Quark CEO Abruptly Resigns

stonydell writes "According to News.com, Quark CEO Kamar Aulakh is no longer with the company. Company spokesman Glen Turpin also said, 'We hope to find a new CEO as soon as possible. It's very important we bring in some professional outside leadership to the company.' Does Quark still have a future or is the future Adobe and Macromedia?"

38 of 291 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Eh... by networkBoy · · Score: 3, Funny

    as the summary insinuates, they'll likely have a new CEO soon, that of Adobe or Macromedia.
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. Quark CEO Resigns? by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

    Strange.

  3. Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Quark doesn't have present, much less a future. They've been passed (and lapped a couple of times) by InDesign long ago. Their delays in keeping up with OS compatibility; their stubornly shipping software with keydisk floppies long after Apple stopped selling machines with floppy drives; they're not the only game in town and frankly, they're not the best game in town, so if they're gone, I for one won't miss them.

    1. Re:Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indesign will let you delete all styles in use without complaint. Quark will
      warn you that a style you're are trying to delete is in use.

      There is no kerning table edit. This is very important to me as in some
      fonts certain things like an f followed by a i grave can be a problem.
      Optical kerning is not a substitute. I want to control this myself. In
      any case, Optical Kerning can't be applied in advance to specific
      characters. It would be a search and replace option.

      Importing text from Word seems fine until you apply a style to a portion
      of text. All page-breaks will disappear. You can't search for
      page-breaks or use the Find and Replace to insert page-breaks. This is a
      major irritation.

      It doesn't make automatic backup files. This can be very important if
      you want to go back. I try to remember to make manual backups in
      InDesign, but it's just one more thing to remember.

      Using a discretionary hyphen can be a nightmare (in version 2.02 at
      least). First, hyphenation has to be switched on in the paragraph, so it
      will hyphenate the whole paragraph. To avoid this (I'm often working in
      Gaelic) I have to make the whole paragraph No Language. If I then type
      an apostrophe it comes out as non-smart. Has this been fixed in the CS
      version? In Quark I just use the discretionary hyphen, end of story.

      En-dashes are breaking always. The only way to make them non-breaking is
      to use the No Break option. Date ranges must have a non-breaking en
      dash. There should be one available, and this should be the default in
      imported text. However, the No Break option is useful in other
      circumstance, so it is a Good Thing.

      In Quark you can globally change the H&J parameter if you want. In
      InDesign you have to do it style by style.

      The general feel of InDesign for me is that it is full of tricks and
      very full of itself and it is up to me to keep up and pay attention or
      it is going to catch me out. I feel Quark is on my side and is more
      forgiving. For instance, if you want to change a style, in Quark there
      is no chance of applying it by accident because you would be in the Edit
      Style sheets menu.

      Obviously there are things I really like about InDesign, notably the
      paragraph composer, and the extensive Find capabilities, such a
      searching for a colour, but generally I still feel more comfortable in
      Quark, although almost everything I do is now in InDesign because of
      Opentype fonts. I haven't upgraded Quark from 4.1 but I am seriously
      considering going back on this next version. It seems I am alone in the
      universe if this newsgroup is anything to go by, but yes, I do like
      Quark. I feel there's a solidity to it. But then I don't print
      transparency or gradients. I'm a plain text and normal graphics and
      maps person. And I don't really mind not importing photoshop files
      direct.

    2. Re:Future? by poopdeville · · Score: 5, Funny

      Christ on a cracker, I'm so glad I use TeX instead of any of these things.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Future? by mkro · · Score: 5, Funny
      This is very important to me as in some fonts certain things like an f followed by a i grave can be a problem.
      So true. A female colleague of mine found out the hard way when she was demonstrating a client's cd labeling software on the big screen.

      The cd label said "FINAL FANTASY", but only until she selected a bolder typeface.
      --
      I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
    4. Re:Future? by Jay+L · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The cd label said "FINAL FANTASY", but only until she selected a bolder typeface.

      I'm trying to get the joke. Four mods already got the joke, but I don't get the joke. I haven't had enough coffee. I'm trying to picture how the kerning changes to form some dirty phrase as the text gets bolder. Ain't happening. Help.

    5. Re:Future? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the first two letters of "FINAL" are too closely spaced, they could appear to be a boxy-looking "A".

      "FINAL FANTASY" ~= s/FI/A/

  4. Slow. . . by jm92956n · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'm taking bets now. How long will Quark take to port their software to the next-generation Intel-based Macs? Six months? Two years?

    They blew it last time around. They had a wonderful product, but you can only screw your customers so many times before they start to get mad.

    --
    An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
    1. Re:Slow. . . by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      assuming they ported to OSX "properly" there should be no problems.

      AFAIK they're software has no reason to make direct hardware calls, so the hardware change should be transparent to them, as long as the OS APIs don't change.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:Slow. . . by EggyToast · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yep, exactly. They had a near-monopoly on desktop publishing on OS9. Then Quark 5 comes out, late, buggy as hell, and... for OS9... well after OS X has been out (I think it came out right when 10.2 hit, which is when OS X started to pick up steam). Why release a new product ONLY on an old OS? It's like releasing an app that ONLY works on Win 98 right when Win2k comes out!

      Then it takes them forever to release an OS X version, Quark 6. Which, while at least as stable as Quark 4, shows little real improvements. No attempts to incorporate new technology, little admission that there are new and often better formats for saving and exporting data.

      InDesign comes out from the burnt remains of PageMaker as an OS X only application, and people start looking at it seriously. They really push it forward with the "CS" version, and it's really a solid product at that time. Now CS2 is out, with very solid XML support and just all around improvements. It's really drastically replacing desktop publishing applications.

      I work with hundreds of different non-profit journals in my work, and we've seen an extremely drastic shift to InDesign. Even WE are moving to InDesign, for exporting documents to XML. InDesign accepts more formats, works with documents from those formats easier, and exports to such a variety that it's really become a great application.

      Quark really blew it.

    3. Re:Slow. . . by jm92956n · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The transition from OS 9.x to OS X was far more important than the transition from PPC to x86 will be. While the former was not at all transparent to the average user, the latter most definitely will be.

      Everyone knew OS X was coming, and every major application had a version released either at the time of OS X's release, or shortly thereafter.

      Except Quark. People were forced to continue to use the OS 9 version, and it was during this period that Adobe took the lead. They took far too much time to release a new version. This time around, at least according to Apple, compiling a new version can be done within days. And I'm sure Quark will still manage to blow it.

      --
      An effective signature identifies a particular user amongst a base of thousands.
    4. Re:Slow. . . by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      WORD!

      My company made the decision to move to Adobe InDesign inspite of a tremendous technical investment to stay based, IMO, entirely on the ridiculous price Quark expects for their tool. (The one program cost more than the entire AdobeCS at the time of the decision.) I think it's a case of them over-valuing themselves and essentially abusing the almost-monopoly they once had. (And thanks to the BSA, my company is also reducing the use of Microsoft software at every opportunity as well... it's a slow and careful process.)

      I don't care how big and important you become. Don't piss off your customers.

    5. Re:Slow. . . by NMerriam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They had a wonderful product

      They had a widely used product. Wonderful, it hasn't been for almost 10 years. The only new ground Quark has broken since 1997 or so is in finding revolutionary and cutting-edge ways to antagonize their own customers and abuse a near-monopoly.

      I wish somebody would just take this company out back and shoot it so we can get everyone on InDesign already.

      --
      Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
  5. Maybe he had a brain hemorrhage by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I did when I was reading their website:

    Paving the way for custom publishing in a multiple-channel environment with industry-leading design, page layout, publishing, enterprise workflow, personalization, and content management software.

  6. Lack of charm by Greg+Hullender · · Score: 5, Funny
    It seems he lacked enough charm to come out on top.

    --Greg

    1. Re:Lack of charm by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 5, Funny

      If that's how you want to spin it...

    2. Re:Lack of charm by Owndapan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well his tenure was not without its ups and downs.

    3. Re:Lack of charm by wowbagger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Alright - we need somebody to get to the bottom of all these off-color puns - they cannot be allowed to gluon indefinitely.

  7. Quark who? ;) by _undan · · Score: 3, Informative

    They still have a future, albeit it's winding down. There's still enough designers and print houses out there using Quark in their workflow that they'll be around for a bit more, but I can't see them growing any more.

    Their biggest problem was not getting Quark to OS X fast enough. Quark used to be one of the killer apps for the Mac platform - Adobe got Photoshop there, but Quark took far too long, and Adobe got them with PageMaker/InDesign.

  8. sudden resignation - the reason by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to a friend who works at Quark (and is busy trying to find a more secure job), the dude's got testicular cancer. :o

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:sudden resignation - the reason by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 3, Funny
      According to a friend who works at Quark (and is busy trying to find a more secure job), the dude's got testicular cancer. :o
      In light of that revelation, I don't think I want to know what that emoticon at the end of your comment is all about...
      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    2. Re:sudden resignation - the reason by Neil+Blender · · Score: 5, Funny

      If this is true (or even if it isn't), why the hell would you broadcast that to the planet? I'm sure he wants to keep this discreet. It's nobody else's business.

      Maybe he wanted to announce it while he still had the balls&&&&SAD_#()%#$^^^^[STRUCK BY LIGHTENING NO CARRIER]

  9. Quark better have a future by MikeBeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Adobe and Macromedia should help in the search. Has the FTC approved the Adobe's purchase of Macromedia? If Quark goes under or looks like it's gonna, the FTC is going to have a hard time approving Adobe's and Macromedia's merger.

  10. I hate Quark by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quark is as good as dead, and has been since InDesign 2.0 came out. Their customer service has always been terrible, they're more concerned about being hyper-vigilant about anyone violating their licensing than they are helping out paying customers. They were way too slow to release an OS X native version. The product itself has always been pretty solid and powerful, but they're still too tied to print output and haven't come along with the rest of the world on this whole internet medium thing.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  11. I guess I was more shocked by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 4, Funny

    to hear that Quark was still around. It is not a name I have heard in about 5 years.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  12. Re:Question by arbitraryaardvark · · Score: 5, Funny

    Quark is the proprietor of Quark's. RTFA?
    With Quark out of the way, his brother Rom can take over.
    http://www.dmwright.com/html/ferengi.htm
    rules of acquisition

  13. Re:If it's true, it's really sad by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 4, Informative

    You usually go in for examination when you notice some symptoms and by that point it's already too late.

    Yes, people: DO NOT IGNORE IRREGULARITIES IN YOUR NUTS. If you feel pain or growth, go to a doctor. You can be embarassed or you can be dead. Your choice. If you find out early enough, it's no big deal. If you find out mid range, it can plague you for the rest of your live (via relapse), if you find out too late, you're dead. The difference between early and too late can be as little as two to six months.

    20-35 year olds be especially vigilant.

  14. Quark customer service by Snap+E+Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And remember, their customer-hostile policies were directly driven by this ass of a CEO. He's the one that allegedly said "All customers are liars, thieves, and bastards" in an exec meeting. Everyone was screaming for an OS X version of Quark it took them how many years to come out with one? You can certainly make a point that Quark was the biggest obstructionist in OS X's adoption by keeping the publishing company on hold. Good riddance. Without this guy, maybe a Intel Mac version of Quark will be released in a reasonable time.

    1. Re:Quark customer service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, you are thinking of Fred Ebrahimi, who left in February 2004 to tend macadamia nuts in Hawaii. He co-founded Quark with Tim Gill. If memory serves, he made the famous remark at MacWorld, where there are usually some, uh, customers lurking about.

  15. good riddance to quark by admactanium · · Score: 4, Interesting
    honestly, as an art director who used quark for 12 years, i have not on twinge of pain as quark dies a slow death. this, from someone who made their living being, in many people's opinion "the fastest quark user they've ever seen." they got extremely arrogant and decided they didn't need to bother improving their product since they HAD a monopoly.

    when our agency switched to indesign, i decided the best thing to do was to just deal with the pain of switching at once and get onboard. i haven't looked back since. there are some things that quark does well (some of the hotkeys are still better). but we were the first large-scale roll-out of indesign for a whole creative department and production studio. nearly every art director and production artist had sworn off quark altogether within a few months.

    quark is this decades syquest. believe you can fleece your customers forever with unreasonably high prices, very little innovation and a big fat monopoly and it will bite you in the ass. quark used to cost more than the whole adobe creative suite (might still if i even cared enough to look it up).

  16. quarkvsindesign.com by Allen+Varney · · Score: 3, Informative

    QuarkVsInDesign.com is an interesting site for desktop publishing professionals, run by one "Pariah S. Burke," that covers the rivalry between the programs. As you can see from the many comments on this March 29th thread, Quark : Postcards From the Edge, the animosity toward Quark has grown pervasive.

  17. Quark quit his job? by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Grand Nagus will be displeased.

  18. Quark? That old thing? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only good Quarks are the one that owns the bar on a space station, and the one that captained a space garbage truck and had identical blonde twins (okay, one was a clone of the other one) as crew. Any other Quark with a capital Q is dead to me. Dead, I tell you.

  19. They're going down anyway by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Does Quark still have a future or is the future Adobe and Macromedia?"

    Franlkly, Quark lost when InDesign 2.0 came out. Since then, the upgrade path has widely been considred to be Quark 4 -> InDesign 2 -> InDesign CS . Quark 6 ? Yeah .... I heard they released that.

    One of the biggest reasons for that is probably that Quark 4 -> Quark 6 and Quark 5 -> Quark 6 upgrades used to cost more than a new copy of InDesign. This, guys, is a really bad plan for keeping marketshare.

    Quark's prices have plummeted, but even so all they really have going for them is that most designers are more familiar with Quark. Their technology is embarrassingly inferior in features, reliability, and pretty much everything else.

    To top it off, Quark hasn't lost it's customer-hostile attitude to sales and support. Adobe will listen to you, and might even act on what you say. You don't get that from Quark. They pissed off a lot of customers while they had them locked in, and now those customers are jumping ship as fast as they can.

    In short ... if I was the Quark CEO, I'd be looking for other work too. Unless the company pulls their head out in a hurry, I'd expect them to lose more than just their CEO.

  20. Re:Quark's demise is overblown by azpenguin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Quark is not dead, or dying, at least not in a rapid fashion. They are however, not a vibrant company at all. It will take a long time to kill off Quark. There are still tons of publishing houses that are dependent on Quark, notably because of all of the Xtensions that allow a company to customize the program for their needs. And it's a tested solution. I work at a newspaper, and the entire place, save for less than a dozen machines, is running Quark. (The machines with InDesign are not involved with the production of the newspaper. One of them is dedicated to converting InDesign ad files sent from agencies.) We have quite a few people who have been with the company for 30+ years, and the only reason they are using Quark is because they had to learn it to keep their job. They had to learn from scratch, and every upgrade has meant a lot of headaches. The company is not eager to re-train designers on another program. So, despite the constant urging of IT, we aren't switching to InDesign. We're still running OS9 and will run Quark 6 when we're on OS X.

    But what is happening out there is a lot of design agencies, who aren't so confined and often have more computer-savvy designers, are moving to InDesign in droves. It offers far more creative freedom and the ability to import the working files is a big plus. (Now if we could get them to use the Acrobat Distiller instead of saving InDesign PDFs... but I digress.) This is going to take away a large chunk of Quark's user base.

    Myself, I'm thinking of starting a small design business, and which way am I going? InDesign. I could pay $900 for Quark, or I can pay $1200 and get InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, and Acrobat. This points to another of Quark's problems - they can't compete with Adobe on features, and they sure as hell can't compete on price. Add to that their bad reputation concerning customer service, and they have got a real problem. Many customers are glad they've finally got an alternative, and they're jumping ship.

    So Quark is not dead, but they will be in the not-too-distant future unless they start doing three things:
    1. Innovate. Bring new things to the table instead of relying on the past and copying features.
    2. Respond to the current market. If they let the same thing happen with the Intel/Apple switchover that they did with OS X, Adobe will eat them alive.
    3. Take care of their customers, instead of treating them as thieves and ignoring concerns. Price products at a reasonable point, and maybe you'll see a little less piracy. Not enough, but a few percentage points' drop can mean a lot of money.
    If they don't do this, they will be dead, especially as the folks in the design field get more computer-savvy and know that they can get a better product.

  21. Die you MFs, die! by mmmuttly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who spent from 88-94 dealing with Xpress 5hrs+ a day, those pricks can't die fast enough to suit me. No - I take that back. I want them to suffer a slow, painful, humiliating death. Drag it out so that Macrodobe does get fat and arrogant too fast. Try calling their customer "service" and look forward to being trated like a criminal. Wait and wait and wait for an OS upgrade that isn't worth a crap. Pay for multiple film outputs because their color management blows chunks. If it weren't for the momentum they had with service bureaus and Pagemaker dropping the ball back around 1990, their customer base would have abandoned them ages ago.

  22. Why I hate Quark by efudddd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Like many others in graphics, I loved the program Quark in the old days (say, version 3.32 up to 4.1.1) but loathed the company. Nowadays there's no need to make any distinction, since 6 is such a non-starter. There are so many reasons to actively despise the company, all revolving around their contempt for their users. Some of my faves:

    * Pioneered 40+ alphanumeric registration code printed as a single block in highly condensed type. No, it's not a big thing, but a great introduction to their general attitude.

    * When the Mac moved from 68k to the PowerPC chip, companies started producing fat binaries of programs that worked on both kinds of machines. ALL of the major Mac companies did this... except Quark, which released a separately priced PPC-alone version.

    * In 2002 then-head of Quark Fred Ebrahimi said at a Quark "executive summary" that "the Macintosh platform is shrinking" and anyone dissatisfied with Quark's Mac commitment should "switch to something else" although moving to InDesign would be "suicide."

    * Dragged their feet on an OS X version until Steve Jobs could joke about "holdouts" and everybody knew who he was talking about. They were dead last transitioning to OS X, and the 6.0 upgrade had nothing new from 5 other than OS X compatibility.

    * Killed their own user-to-user forum around the time of the 6 release (it's back now)

    * If you run a small LAN and can't afford site licensing, you'll love Quark 6's paranoid active registration. Beyond the arcane installation, the rights are for a single machine, not single user! The registration is hardware-specific: if your hard drive crashes, or if you clone your system to a new drive, you have to reactivate the software. For our group, using automated activation didn't work for three of five upgrades, and I wound up on the phone begging Bangalore for activation numbers. I now slate an hour of frustration for each upgrade or reinstall of this program.

    * Quark 6 still doesn't play nice with PDFs. PDFs are now the industry standard, but we've experienced various strangeness in Quark's direct PDF output and can't trust it for high-end jobs.

    So why are people still using it? In our case, backlog of files. We have InDesign CS and are using it for new work and pickups. Quark would be in the dumpster except for old jobs. Going back now because they might mend their ways? Too little, too late.

    My boss knows my long-time disgust with Microsoft, and once asked which I hated more, Microsoft or Quark? It stopped me cold, and I finally just had to say "Yes."