🚀 go-pugleaf

The cure for sad updates 

In order to keep the threads more focused, I�ve responded to message 42, Sean�s question about the usefulness of multiple undo, in the thread on multiple undo, message 20. And I�ve addressed the comparison of FM with other programs in the thread on the best alternative to FM, message 8. In this message I wish to address the topic of this thread. 

The title of this thread is �FM 7: A sad update�, and in reading the thread content, one indeed feels sad. The reader feels sad that there are a lot of FM users who feel ignored by Adobe. This problem is also reflected in the following threads: �FM functionality: Is anyone at Adobe listening?�, �FM 7 not better for scientific publications�, and �Does FM 7 have multiple undo?�. 

This situation raises the following question: Does FM have serious competition? There are two complementary reasons for this question. 

1.  If FM has serious competition, then a dissatisfied FM user can consider switching to a competing program. 

2.  If FM lacks serious competition, then Adobe lacks the motivation for program improvement that serious competition engenders. Serious competition motivates the program developer due to reason # 1. 

The burning question in my mind, accordingly, is this: What is the best alternative to FM and how does it compare to FM? That�s the topic of the thread I started, entitled �The Best Alternative to FM�. 

For perspective let�s consider Adobe�s disposition regarding InDesign, a program for graphic-design layout. 

Right now Adobe is offering a competitive upgrade from Quark Xpress to InDesign. Furthermore, you can purchase InDesign in the Adobe Design Collection: InDesign 2, Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, and Acrobat 5, all for just $1000 list price. This is one of four such collections of programs that Adobe offers for $1000. (None of these collections includes FM, by the way.) 

You can see that Adobe is aggressively pursuing the graphic-design market. They�re out to steal Quark�s market share, and my bet is they�re going to succeed. Adobe�s array of complementary programs is a big draw, and Quark can�t compete with this unless they team with companies having complementary products. I think that Adobe will draw a small percentage of Xpress users, but I think that their main market will be new users. I think that Adobe will draw the majority of new users due to Adobe�s complementary array of programs and their competitive pricing of program collections. Competing with Adobe is becoming more and more like competing with Microsoft: you find yourself staring up at one brawny goliath! 

In the foregoing light, if Adobe has no serious competition for the FM market, Adobe won�t fund FM development generously, as they have obviously funded InDesign development, a theme that Tom Huffman referred to in message 6. Accordingly, the most strategic thing FM users can hope for in motivating Adobe is serious competition for the FM market. 

What hope is there for such competition? 

In message 6, Tom Huffman said that Corel doesn�t have the capital to develop Ventura. Microsoft�s obviously in the best position to compete with Adobe because of Microsoft�s reputation, capitalization, web-based technical support, and office suite. Yes, like Adobe, Microsoft has a suite of complementary programs that it can sell. 

Furthermore, Microsoft can compete with Pagemaker and Framemaker simultaneously, doing with one product what Adobe does with two. While Adobe will be spending money on two of everything � two design teams, two support teams, two marketing teams, two packages, two products � Microsoft will be spending money on just one of everything, a powerful advantage. Microsoft could, alternatively, have two versions of Word: Word Standard, competing with PM, and Word Professional, competing with FM. This would still be a savings over Adobe having two non-integrable products. 

To be more specific concerning Microsoft�s office suite, consider the following, in reference to the 2000 version, which I use. 

One powerful feature that the suite offers is that Word can embed Excel spreadsheets. This has made my work much more efficient because I can work in Excel, taking advantage of its features, and the result will appear in my book. Keep in mind this is not a matter of importing the spreadsheet as a table but embedding it, allowing me to work on it in Excel whenever I want to change it. This allows me to use Excel�s chart features, as well as its table features. Can FM compete with this? 

The Microsoft suite also has a clipboard that can hold 12 items, not just one. According to Joshua Redstone, in message 47, FM�s clipboard can hold just 1 item. 

Microsoft has what may well be the best non-professional image-editing program: Picture It. So you can add Picture It to Microsoft�s suite of programs to complement their office suite. And, of course, they have their webpage program FrontPage. 

Now imagine that Microsoft decides to go after Adobe�s PM and FM markets like Adobe is going after Quark�s market. Adobe would wake up fast! In message 37, Tim Murray said that Lockheed Martin switched hundreds of users from FM to Word. This is the competition that Adobe needs to motivate them to improve FM. 

In conclusion, consider that we�re living in the midst of the greatest technological revolution in the history of civilization, a revolution that provides ever greater computing capability surprisingly fast and at surprisingly low cost. 

What drives this progress at a speed that takes our breath away? 

The driving force underling this progress is competition for purchaser dollars. So if FM users want to see the development of FM move ahead at a good rate in meeting their needs, their best hope to realize this dream will be the presence of a hotly competitive product, as in the competition between Quark Xpress and Adobe InDesign. 

In short, the greatest assurance that FM users can have is not that FM is clearly better than its competitors, but that FM is in hot competition with its competitors. This is the surefire cure for the FM saga of one sad update after another.