Adobe as a sales force contact manager.

I agree, I only use Acrobat Pro 9 anymore and that's because of the Adobe conforming PDF driver and Distiller. I us no Adobe graphics applications any longer and that has been for several years.

I agree, I used to have 40 or more users with my architectural clients, now I have zero. Every complaint my clients had went totally unaddressed. The list is long but stability,  font management, customizations causing crashes, no forward movement in Photo-PAINT.  The list goes on for miles.

X8 font management was so awful it was unusable in a networked environment.  CorelDRAW users that worked for them were so bad with customizing their work spaces and corrupting their machines that the IT staff considered Draw no longer viable. I ask for years for an administrative lock, nothing was ever done.

Graphics is very diverse, many types of files can be done with low and no cost applications. That is tough for Adobe and Corel. However it's like Corel isn't even trying.

I read users post the application needs that new wow feature but that's crap.  There is no wow feature. There are a set of needs that make a wow!

State of the art font support that work, web bases work flow that actually works, interfacing with other applications that works. Features that have been tested and work, to start with. Core technology that works is not enough any longer. 

I have to use the noise reduction features of AftetShot Pro, PaintShop Pro and Photo-PAINT in my image editing.  That's not unusual as Photoshop lacks some of these too, however Photo-PAINT just got it's decade old features moved from 8 bit to16 bit while the hobby program had more advanced features,

I'm teetering between thinking that Corel management just does not care and that Corel management just doesn't know! The world is so stupid I leaning toward that Corel just does no know.

In my area they have regulated signs to the point where a $300 sign can require a $500 engineer drawing along with $150 permitting fee!

Some of the regulatory stuff involving signs drives me completely bat-$#!+ crazy at times. It does nothing but waste time and effort to prove to some government bean counter that you know what you are doing in your job. It's really insulting to be blunt about it. I have 40+ years of real art and design experience, a 4 year degree from one of the nation's best art schools and over 25 years of experience doing sign work. I think it's pretty clear I am competent (and actually pretty great) in the work I do. But I have to prove my worth via the red tape again and again.

Some of it isn't so difficult, thankfully. I have a number of "section detail" cross section drawings I adjust and re-use for electrical plans. I'm always on the lookout to come up with new ways how to work around the red tape nonsense. But it is a pain when you have to reproduce scale drawings of a building elevation, complete with all kinds of dimensional call-out labels, just in order to get an installation permit. We're talking more than just Photoshopping an image of the sign onto a photo of the building.

One thing I cannot control is the conduct of others doing bad design work in this same industry. Those guys and their cheapskate bosses are going to ruin the whole endeavor for all of us. They're only out to make a fast buck. I'm wanting to maintain a business model for decades and leave something behind for others coming up into our industry. But we won't have any sign industry to speak of if sign designers refuse to understand the civic responsibility they must observe in their work. A great looking, great quality sign can turn into a town landmark. A poorly designed sign is an eye-sore and contributes to blight. Sign designers, sign business owners and the businesses themselves really need to operate from a perspective of: am I being part of the problem or part of the solution? They can add to the commercial landscape in a positive way or crap on it in a negative way.

***

I feel like the development team behind CorelDRAW has its hands tied in multiple ways. There's no doubt they've had to endure nonsense coming from down on high via the private equity company bosses who own Corel. First it was Vector Capital and now it is KKR. If I had to guess the development team for CorelDRAW is getting a constant ration of grief and anger from the bosses higher above for how they're supposedly failing. But the CorelDRAW developers are clearly not provided the resources and personnel needed to keep up with or (God forbid) surpass Adobe. It is perfectly clearly the Corel team is suffering given the lack of updates they've been able to provide over the past couple or so years via flawed versions of CorelDRAW. I feel like CDR 2018 was the last reasonably stable version of CorelDRAW. If the CorelDRAW development team was other than beleaguered and disillusioned I would be surprised.

Meanwhile the field of competitors are not sitting on their hands. Adobe clearly considers Illustrator a vital part of its arsenal and is actively working to improve it. The Illustrator beta program is no joke. The Adobe team actually listens to suggestions from beta users. I feel like I can take credit for a couple positive changes that happened in the past year, a couple changes of which removed key advantages CorelDRAW held over Illustrator. Adobe is working in a hotly competitive environment. The vector draw program angle is actually a lesser concern. I think Adobe is operating far more in an damage control angle on the video production end. After Effects is still very much a titan application for motion graphics. But DaVinci Resolve has really been gnawing hard on Adobe's heels and threatening to totally overtake them. DaVinci Resolve doesn't require some $54 per month revolving fee to use. DaVinci Resolve has a free, open source version. And then they have a full tilt deluxe version that costs $300. The graphics departments in our local university and vo-tech lean hard into Adobe. But I've told them they really need to be taking a hard look at DaVinci Resolve. The folks at Blackmagic Design really do know what they're doing. Unlike Corel, I think Adobe is realistic about the challenges it faces and they're trying hard to step up their game. The Premiere Pro NLE app was deficient in a number of areas and Adobe has been trying to fix it. Adobe has been adding new features in response to new video card chip sets, particularly those from AMD. While Adobe might be the "big bad monopoly" their executives seem to be acting as if they know very well they have vulnerabilities.

Let's examine the relationship in terms of file compatibility between Adobe and CoreDRAW since my first  experiences with version 3 to now.  It has always been very spotty,  somewhere in the X cycles it got a tiny bit better.

In general NO REAL DIFFERENCE now, then there ever was. So no real new issues over the last 25 years or more. 

Why the compatibility problem? Any monkey that's worth their salt and has used both Adobe and CorelDRAW together knows that Adobe and Corel approach complex fills and transparency differently.

So there WILL NEVER be 100% cross application compatibility and there never has been.  Then again no real change in the last 25 years.

Advantages/disadvantages?

I have nearly zero experiance with non postscript output so I'll not speak to that.

I have output to nearly every high end RIP system currently in use and dozens that are no longer in production.

In general zero difference between the output of the applications. 

There are some subtle differences mostly with layered transparency, in my experience Adobe produces more surprises that fail to show up in the RIP proof preview but do show up on plate then CorelDRAW does. I suspect it's because the Adobe process has transparency created in 3 applications being processed in the PDF stream where CorelDRAW transparency 99.9999% of the time is proceeded only via Draw.

This is a problem for proofing systems the do not use ROOM technology.

I have output to many print and print/cut RIPS for roll fed and flat bed devices including those with white and metallic capabilities.  DO NOT CONFUSE these RIPS with the high end print RIPS mentioned above. THEY ARE NOT OF THE SAME QUALITY.

Many of these RIPS (99%) are based on licensed lower end Global Graphics or Watach software. Many are still postscript 2 or 3 devices very few are true PDF RIPS.

Again in general zero differences between the output.

Again subtle differences, I've seen more surprises on the media than what showed up in the RIP preview with Adobe products then with CorelDRAW I again suspect for the same reason.

My vendors using proprietary CAD interfaces no longer want anything but PDF output. I've done cut acrylic signage with 5 levels so it must work. If you know how to make the files.

So what's the big deal with 2020? Why now is there such a problem?

The release of 2019 with all the recoding was a significant step backwards in many areas due to coding errors and developer arrogance. 

Now with plenty of experiance with the application, I see the release of 2020 as barely a 5% attempt at simply repairing the damage done in 2019. Another example of Corel arrogance. 

Like it or not if YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, create complex work, output your work, have 2018 and 2020 installed in US dollars CorelDRAW is still a viable cost effective choice.

The situation is pretty simple. If someone is generating all of his artwork from scratch he can use whatever graphics applications he prefers. But if that person has to incorporate artwork provided by others into the final product it's important for those client assets to be reproduced accurately. Sign companies have to deal with that issue all the time. It's one thing if the artwork is a funky JPEG from a local mom and pop business. It's another thing if the artwork is branding assets from a major company for a big sign project.

Most corporate branding work is generated using Adobe's software. While Illustrator and CorelDRAW have many features in common there are dozens of features and effects where the two applications do not overlap at all. Third party plug-ins (such as Astute Graphics' big suite of plug-ins for Illustrator) can further complicate the situation. I have many years of experience moving logos and other assets between the two applications, so I'm pretty aware of which things translate perfectly and the other things that break. Unfortunately most of the people doing corporate branding work don't care to consider those issues. They just assume everyone who will handle their branding assets uses Adobe software. It's not a big deal if their assets don't contain elaborate fills and effects. But they routinely save AI and EPS files in the latest CC version rather than in an older "legacy" format that other applications can import (with varying levels of success).

Over the past few version releases CorelDRAW has become better at importing Illustrator-generated art files. The additional features Corel added to gradient fills (including varying levels of transparency) were one factor that improved import accuracy. For example, the YMCA is one client whose branding assets I can now reproduce accurately within CorelDRAW. When they first rolled out that branding scheme back in the late 2000's I had to use Adobe Illustrator exclusively to reproduce the collection of full color logos due to how the gradient fills were built.

Technical issues of importing artwork aside, my bigger concern is the future outlook for CorelDRAW. If they don't get a handle on bugs and get real about some existential issues they'll be a historical footnote a few years from now just like Macromedia or other defunct software companies.