I just asked you to clarify a bit because this is something new to me. Of course, I have been reading all kind of sites, but admittedly they are usually pro-Adobe so this type of info would most likely be disregarded.

I know that major magazines here use InDesign. I also heard major UK Publishers moved to ID as well (and portfolio of mags published with it is enormous) as well as some book publishing houses in the US, so your comment surprised me. I’d assume that stopping migration process and returning everything to old would cost more and be more time consuming than actually finishing started migration to new product.

I’ll take your word for it though. I’m in no position to provide realistic situation. Adobe is playing European customers with its pricing. I wouldn’t be surprised if CS3 adoption is slower than expected here. Then again, Quark does exactly the same to us. Regarding support - thankfully I never needed it myself. It would be knife in the back for Adobe to neglect corporate users and provide them with mediocre support. Quark’s iconic reputation for bad/arrogant support is probably the main reason that drove people away form it. I’d suspect that Adobe would know otherwise.

I wouldn’t call Adobe copycat. They are innovators after all when it comes to publishing. The most crucial technologies used in that area are conceived in Adobe. the fact that both software (QXP and ID) are adding same/similar feature is always tricky. One can claim one is copying other, but it’s totally irrelevant to end user who had it first. I think the areas ID lacked behind were more or less matched/surpassed with CS3 (PDF/PSD) support…). For current Quark users, 7 is major update and it’s nice, but it offers nothing attractive to current ID users, IMO.

You are certainly right about marketing though. It’s a powerful tool (just look at Apple). In the end, I doubt any rational person would invest their money solely on hearsay. Both software can be tested and you can decide to make a purchase based on your own experience. In corporate environments this is probably hard/impossible, but still…

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that Quark is the innovator and Adobe the follower in this case. Job Jackets, Composition Zones, Layout Spaces, Shared Layouts, Colour based transparency. Real industry innovations in the tools, production driven.

From what I see the US is behind in seeing this due to the Adobe marketing machine, this website is a classic example. Only provide the information needed to get the result you want, and that’s the results that is the most profitable for the individual. They look for where there pay day is coming

look at data from both Company sites, look at what large Agency’s and publishers are doing, as this changes based on your location, while Europe is switching back to XPress as a standard the US is still very much split.
Quark has the Speed and the technology and InDesign has some of the features. Mjenuius is correct the only reason freelancers like InDesign is becouse it’s free with the suite, and most haven’t used Quark or not since 5 at least.

Before we switched to ID we found it almost impossible to get any interns because the applications we got had only ID experience because the colleges were only teaching ID. So I suggest taking a survey of local colleges and see the current situation. You might find that there are a fair number taking QXP courses. You really want to know the local situation for this, not national.

Which is better depends on a number of issues, including what you design. I am finding ID having basic features that QXP lacks that are important for magazine publishing. People creating ads will have different criteria than me. For example, our staff that works on ads do not care about style sheets and master pages, but these two features are critical to our staff working on the editorial side. And even within an expertise there will be differences of opinion. Concentrate on what people doing similar work are using.