When I left Frame Tech in 1994, internal metrics and intelligent speculation 
put the total number of worldwide licenses at around 300K. With Wanock's 
listing of 500K 5 years later, you could  assume liberal growth of 40,000 
licenses per year which would put the probable current figure at an additional 
280,000 licenses for a total of 780,000. If you cut the growth figure in half 
to be conservative, the total number of licenses is probably 640,000.

I think 650,000 total licenses would be a safe, conservative figure.

FYI -- when I worked at Frame Tech and many of the licenses sold were still 
UNIX (the PC was taking off by 1993), Frame estimated that only about 15% of 
users actually registered their licenses. I don't know what the reg rate is for 
Adobe, but that is one of the reasons that it is very challenging for a vendor 
to have accurate figures on actual numbers of licenses in use.

Regarding your earlier posting in late April (what are some of the advantages 
that structured FrameMaker has over Arbortext) here are a few insights. I've 
worked with a few customers whose management insisted on migration to 
Arbortext, while much of production stayed in FrameMaker during the interim. 
Even with experienced users who are "up" on XML structure, Arbortext takes far 
longer than FrameMaker to design and test templates. Arbortext Architect (the 
special license required to create style sheets) used to cost $15K. 
FrameMaker's advantage is that every license is a "template creator" at no 
additional cost.

My company continued to design and support the structured application files in 
FrameMaker for one account that had parallel Arbortext publishing and 
development. Feedback we received is that it took ENLASO 4 business days to 
develop significant format changes for XML publishing that took over 3.5 weeks 
of testing and development in Arbortext. Naturally, some of this may be 
dependent on the intelligence of expertise of the staff involved. But in 
general I have observed that structured FrameMaker is much swifter than 
Arbortext when it comes to making significant structural and formatting changes 
to an application.

The customer in question used very sophisticated page and PDF formatting that 
went beyond most "streamline" formatting associated with XML applications. 
(Lots of fancy tables, and lots of 3 level lists w/in tables.)

Because Arbortext does not give a "literal" page representation, there are 
often surprises at print/output time from target languages that cause text 
expansion. One more reason that FrameMaker's embedded EDD with formatting rules 
and "real" page display gives an advantage.

The single biggest reason to stick with FrameMaker over Arbortext would be if 
you have multilingual projects that occasionally require maintaining the same 
page breaks as the source English. In Arbortext that would require an awful lot 
of "PDF previews" to achieve.

Another reason for sticking with structured FrameMaker is if your company or 
division has a desire to "go all XML" corporate wide. FrameMaker has a much 
lower learning curve than Arbortext, and is far easier for Word users to master 
it than Arbortext. End users in Arbortext (who won't be involved in format 
design, etc.) have a considerable amount of training to go through to master 
the system which is less intuitive. If I had to distill it down to a crude 
observation I would say that Arbortext was designed for engineers and 
FrameMaker was designed for "everybody else." -- p.s. I went through 4 weeks of 
Arbortext training a few years ago. Recent demos indicate that the publishing 
paradigm is still similar to what I was trained on.

I hope this helps. Feel free to contact me directly if you need more insights.

Maxwell Hoffmann
Manager of Consulting & Training Solutions
ENLASO Corporation
T: 805 494 9571 * F: 805 435 1920
E: mhoffmann at translate.com <mailto:mhoffmann at translate.com>  ? ENLASO 
Corporation provides quality enterprise language solutions and exceeds client 
expectations through continuing research, development, and implementation of 
effective localization processes and technologies.  Visit: www.translate.com 
<http://www.translate.com/>  for more information or to subscribe to our 
complimentary localization newsletter. 

>Message: 1
>Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:28:22 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>From: Diane Gaskill <dgcaller at earthlink.net>
>Subject: How many FM users are there?
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>       <30813912.1178692103115.JavaMail.root at 
> elwamui-huard.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>Hi all,
>I know Adobe keeps all of their numbers a Big Secret, but I am creating a 
>comparison spreadsheet in my research on FM vs AT and I need to have a general 
>idea of how many FM seats have been installed.  FM has been in use since the 
>late 1980s and I would estimate at least 100K seats.  If anyone on the list 
>can provide an more accurate number, I'd really appreciate the information.  
>Incidentally, PTC says they have 20K installed seats.

Reply via email to