Wow. What a wonderfully informative email. This one will go straight to the
Director's inbox as well as my manager's for sure.
Thank you SO much, Max.
>From: Maxwell Hoffmann <mhoffmann at translate.com>
>Sent: May 10, 2007 9:01 AM
>To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
>Subject: RE: How many FM users are there?
>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
>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.
>Manager of Consulting & Training Solutions
>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.
>>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
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>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.