Apple Stores shifting focus to software in bid for more switchers

[AppleInsider]

Apple plans to rearrange the layout of its retail stores to place a greater emphasis on its consumer software offerings in an effort to convert even more customers to the Mac.

ifoAppleStore claims that the front section of the redesigned shops will seek to reel in passersby, window shoppers and the curious with a "Why You'll Love a Mac" theme, featuring signs and brochures comparing the Mac to the Windows-based PC world.

The new plans are still being implemented, but Mac OS X applications will also take center stage in the Mac maker's bid for even more 'switchers.' The second section of the stores will be dedicated to the iLife digital lifestyle suite, while the third will be tabbed for iWork.

"The reorganization could begin as early as next week, but could take several weeks for staff retraining and graphics change-outs," the report said, adding that this is the third major interior design change – wood floors followed by a stainless steel interiors in 2006 – to take place since the stores' inception.

Apple has also changed its iPhone 3G and iPod touch displays to reflect the emphasis on software. The tables are arranged into categories of applications; including games, pleasure and travel, and others, with new acrylic information stands for each.



Each device is then loaded with many applications from their target category, making it simple for customers to learn more about whichever kinds of apps they're interested in.



Also worth noting is a redesign of the acrylic stands, which are actually no longer "stands". They are now laying almost flat on the table in a wedge shape, allowing them to be more easily read from where the customer stands. The horizontal displays improve upon the old design, which made shoppers either bend down or pick up the stands to read them.



Finally, the Apple Store-dedicated site notes that shopping bag dispensers have been placed underneath the tables, joining the printers already mounted there. Now employees, already using handheld devices to complete sales anywhere in the store, won't have to walk to the front-of-store checkout counter to bag customers' items.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[caliminius]

So on the computer side, Apple is only highlighting two software packages: iLife and iWork (one of which they'll get free if they buy a Mac). Wow, that sounds, well, kind of pathetic. Not even going to attempt to make the Mac look like it has a good selection of 3rd-party apps...

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by caliminius

So on the computer side, Apple is only highlighting two software packages: iLife and iWork (one of which they'll get free if they buy a Mac). Wow, that sounds, well, kind of pathetic. Not even going to attempt to make the Mac look like it has a good selection of 3rd-party apps...

The whole concept of "a good selection of third party apps" is an old one at this point and not as relevant as you think it is. People mostly just want a computer nowadays that will do what they need it to do and run the apps that they commonly need to run. Mac beats Windows hands down on that front.

I do agree with the articles premise that software should be the retail focus in that the machines pretty much sell themselves hardware wise.

I'd like to see Apple port iWork over to the Windows for instance as it's just a better product than Office for anyone but the advanced business user (i.e. almost all consumers), and rather than inhibit sales of Mac hardware I think it would accelerate the conversion.

[amac4me]

Nice to see Apple continue to push the envelope to attract new users to the Mac. Growth over the past few years has been fueled by switchers and it's nice to see Apple continue to target these customers especially given the economic backdrop.

[walshbj]

Originally Posted by caliminius

So on the computer side, Apple is only highlighting two software packages: iLife and iWork (one of which they'll get free if they buy a Mac). Wow, that sounds, well, kind of pathetic. Not even going to attempt to make the Mac look like it has a good selection of 3rd-party apps...

I don't follow your reasoning. The article said the effort is to get switchers. iLife seems like a great way to do that. They're not trying to sell software, they're trying to sell Macs to switchers. Can you clarify?

[bluedalmatian]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I'd like to see Apple port iWork over to the Windows for instance as it's just a better product than Office for anyone but the advanced business user (i.e. almost all consumers), and rather than inhibit sales of Mac hardware I think it would accelerate the conversion.

I agree, although I also think they need to address the hardware pricing as well.

[macFanDave]

if Apple does more than attractively display software, particularly 3rd-party software.

I found a gem at the Apple Store, but I didn't buy it there. It's ViaCAD 2D/3D. I saw it at the store, went home, downloaded the trial version and eventually bought a license via Buy.com for $60 compared to the $99 list price charged by the Apple Store. I've used a lot of CAD systems -- from the simplest to the highest-end, NX and ProE. ViaCAD is a great VALUE; it's very powerful for the price.

Now, if the Apple Store would load that software on a machine and maybe demo it, they can successfully sell copies.

[Ireland]

Not exactly shifting focus really, just rearranging the presentation a little. They always pushed the Mac to switchers at the Apple store. They are just being more proactive about it. Nothing to see here really.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by walshbj

I don't follow your reasoning. The article said the effort is to get switchers. iLife seems like a great way to do that.

I may be alone, but I've rarely found myself using most of the iLife software. Garageband seems like a really niche product. Likewise, though to a lesser exent, for iWeb and iDVD (I don't know if I've even opened iWeb in my 2 years of Mac ownership). That leaves 2 actually substantial products, iMovie and iPhoto. Neither is really a product most people will end up using very frequently.

They're not trying to sell software, they're trying to sell Macs to switchers. Can you clarify?

Go to your local Best Buy and you can walk down several aisles of PC software. Go to your local Wal-Mart and you'll find an aisle or 2 of PC software. When I go to my local Apple Store, I find a six foot span of wall with about 40 cubby holes for software. If they're trying to get switchers, shouldn't they make a better effort to show that they can match a PC's software selection?

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I'd like to see Apple port iWork over to the Windows for instance as it's just a better product than Office for anyone but the advanced business user (i.e. almost all consumers), and rather than inhibit sales of Mac hardware I think it would accelerate the conversion.

I'm curious. What aspects of the iWork suite make it better than the Office suite? I've read in-depth comparisions of both, and reviews and comments point to the contrary. You can't just cough up a comment like that and not explain what it is about iWork that makes it "just a better product" than Office.

As one who admittedly uses Office, I find this interesting.

[MacTel]

With the iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and Xserve being absent from refreshes they'll need every bit of marketing help.

Apple should really license their OSX in a limited form. Meaning, allow licensees to build desktops and servers with OSX preinstalled but not their bread and butter laptop market. Apple seemingly cannot keep-up the refresh cycle with the industry in those markets.

It is tiresome to keep asking for an xMac, a more powerful yet less expensive Mac Mini, and an iMac that isn't so prone to faulty design and manufacturing. Plus the server and pro workstatoin line really isn't Apple's expertise.

Limited OEM licensing where it doesn't affect Apple's bottomline. That's what Apple needs to do.

[cgc0202]

This innovation should have been done a long time ago. But it should go further. When I visit the the two Apple Stores near my place here in Boston, what I found lacking are the softwares that I hope to test drive or accidentally browse.

Sure there are some software applications displayed but they seem to be focused more on just the mainstream applications either by Apple or big companies, like Microsoft. The teaching demos are mainly focused also on Apple software products. There is of course, the one-on-one tutorial for a very cheap $95 per year, but that would benefit mainly the local residents who already are Mac users.

Apple must extend its outreach, perhaps including focused features of Mac softwares even those by third parties, as part of its feature daily (weekly) demos. Apple should also learn from the success of the Apps Store online to solidify the prominence of the iPhone and iPod Touch as portable computing, multimedia, internet and entertainment devices, one with capability as a cell phone, and the other with potential for internet phone device.

The aforementioned model must be used to encourage software developers for the Mac, Apple TV and other devices that Apple may develop as one stop source of available software. Others in this and other sites have suggested similar ideas before. It will integrate already existing softwares available for the Mac to dispel the notion that there are only few applications available for the Mac. But more importantly, apart from attracting mainstream developers not yet tuned in to Mac, a similar software section of the Apps Store will attract potentially from all over the world indvidual and small group software developers -- perhaps with limited personnel or financial -- resources but yet have creative to dream of software applications, as was demonstrated from the more than 20,000 applications created for the iPhone and iPod Touch.

The synergy would be for the physical Apple Stores to serve as hands on interaction of featured softwares for the Mac and other Apple devices. While they may not buy them in the store immediately, the Apps Store online will serve as a convenient way to purchase a desired software in the future.

Let a thousand ideas bloom.

[hiimamac]

Originally Posted by caliminius

I may be alone, but I've rarely found myself using most of the iLife software. Garageband seems like a really niche product. Likewise, though to a lesser exent, for iWeb and iDVD (I don't know if I've even opened iWeb in my 2 years of Mac ownership). That leaves 2 actually substantial products, iMovie and iPhoto. Neither is really a product most people will end up using very frequently.



Go to your local Best Buy and you can walk down several aisles of PC software. Go to your local Wal-Mart and you'll find an aisle or 2 of PC software. When I go to my local Apple Store, I find a six foot span of wall with about 40 cubby holes for software. If they're trying to get switchers, shouldn't they make a better effort to show that they can match a PC's software selection?

True, but from a software and PC point of view, there is nothing like iLife for the PC. Additionally, if one were a hobbyist and played with video programs, iMovie would look stellar, FCP and Titles would blow them away.

True: A friend of mine built a PC and did some video editing with Video Vegas, he started by editing his own wedding. He then bought a dual G5 MAC and did the same. iMovie (was still iMovie 06) was leaps and bounds beyond the PC offerings. He then got FCP (Student) and edited his wedding again. He then started editing and shooting other weddings. (while working part time at a bar). Fast Forward to 2 years. He now moved back to his home state of Kansas with his wife, bought a house, has two children and is the Creative Manager for a post production company. He uses Mac and PC (some FX software is PC only, (3D software), and After Effects. Ironically, he loves AE and says to stay away from Motion as AE is where it's at, compared to motion. But he still uses a Mac for FCP.


If you are a creative person and have a creative bone in your body, the Mac software and templates are going to jump out at you, especially since 90% of the US have never seen them.

As another said, the software will result in hardware sales. Its actually a really good move.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I'd like to see Apple port iWork over to the Windows for instance as it's just a better product than Office for anyone but the advanced business user (i.e. almost all consumers), and rather than inhibit sales of Mac hardware I think it would accelerate the conversion.

Doing battle with Microsoft on their home turf would be awfully risky. Microsoft currently sells MS Office on Mac because it makes them money. However, if Apple starts selling iWork on Windows to undercut office, then they risk aggravating Microsoft, who could discontinue MS Office on Mac, which in turn would kill a lot of the switcher market.

I've been in an Apple store and overheard at least on one occasion a student saying they absolutely needed Microsoft Office if they were going to switch to Mac.

[hmurchison]

I've always wished that Apple would highlight applications that are Macintosh only.

Kind of like a "Only on Macintosh" campaign which would highlight the stellar Mac apps like.

Scrivener
Pixelmator
Panic's Coda
Delicious Library
Skitch
Xsliva Lightspeed

and more.

I think that PC users tend to only recognize the majors (well many Mac users as well) like Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit.

The thing is the Mac platform is defined by software software software and I know that Apple spends a lot of time and money developing credibility with the majors but it sure would be nice to see the little guys strut their stuff.

Once you start "looking" and enjoying apps from Micro ISV you can't stop. I thought the Mac Heist and Mac Zot bundles were stupid and gimmicky but like a drug pimp giving me a "Free" hit I got hooked. Now I need a freakin app to track my licenses.

Software is what drives our platform and the gems are coming from these small "labour of love" shops (yes I'm British now lol)

[teckstud]

Want more switchers? Simply open up Apple's OS to other hardware manufacturers. Many PC people are just not that into Apple laptops even though many of you will find that hard to fathom.

[deanbar]

Originally Posted by caliminius

I may be alone, but I've rarely found myself using most of the iLife software. Garageband seems like a really niche product. Likewise, though to a lesser exent, for iWeb and iDVD (I don't know if I've even opened iWeb in my 2 years of Mac ownership). That leaves 2 actually substantial products, iMovie and iPhoto. Neither is really a product most people will end up using very frequently.



Go to your local Best Buy and you can walk down several aisles of PC software. Go to your local Wal-Mart and you'll find an aisle or 2 of PC software. When I go to my local Apple Store, I find a six foot span of wall with about 40 cubby holes for software. If they're trying to get switchers, shouldn't they make a better effort to show that they can match a PC's software selection?

I couldn't have put it better myself. Here in the UK, I guess PC World is the nearest to your Best Buy, with much the same situation - very little Apple or 3rd party software, compared to stacks of PC software. Apple needs to make a better show of third party software and do more to encourage developers, instead of P***ing them off.

I only use iPhoto out of the bundled suite, I often read there are other better alternatives but I can't be bothered to change over. The rest of the bundled software suite I tend to agree with most of the PC crowd who call it "toy" software. In the mid 90's we had Avid software bundled with our computers, far superior to iMovie.

[Shaun, UK]

Originally Posted by caliminius

Go to your local Best Buy and you can walk down several aisles of PC software. Go to your local Wal-Mart and you'll find an aisle or 2 of PC software. When I go to my local Apple Store, I find a six foot span of wall with about 40 cubby holes for software. If they're trying to get switchers, shouldn't they make a better effort to show that they can match a PC's software selection?

I agree. In the UK if you go to PC World for example they have rows and rows of PC software but only a handful of Mac software titles. This just reinforces the misconception amongst PC users that there is limited 3rd party software for the Mac. So, if it was me I would put as many third party applications in each Apple store as possible and have them loaded onto the demo Macs so potential buyers can see that they are every bit as good as the PC version. Obviously highlight iWork and iLfe as well just please don't make them the only selling tool. Business users need applications for accounts, payroll, CRM, etc, etc.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by iReality85

I'm curious. What aspects of the iWork suite make it better than the Office suite? I've read in-depth comparisions of both, and reviews and comments point to the contrary. You can't just cough up a comment like that and not explain what it is about iWork that makes it "just a better product" than Office.

As one who admittedly uses Office, I find this interesting.

Well any review will have it's biases including mine. I spend a good part of the day every day training people how to use software packages in a University environment and troubleshooting their issues however so I think I have some insight into actual use.

I find most reviews of iWork to date have focussed on feature comparison with the classic "check-box" approach that really avoids talking about the average users needs, likes/dislikes etc. so when you read a review of iWork it's usually about how it lacks this obscure arcane feature or that, and how it's "not quite as good as office" as a result. The last version lacked a few fairly basic features like mail-merge etc. but the current version has pretty much patched up these holes IMO.

This kind of criticism gets less and less useful as the product approaches feature parity also. If you envision an exponential curve, you'll get what I mean. Down at the low end of the curve, if one product lacks a really base level feature like printing or scrolling, the difference is crucial. At the top end of the curve (where we are now), the inability to do some smaller feature that only a tiny subset of users need is far less critical and the general criticism of non-parity on features kind of falls apart.

A lot of reviews also focus on the business end of things and how iWork is not ready for business" (I disagree), and then mention obscure features that a fortune 500 company might find essential, but that the average small business user never encounters. They also never talk about the reality that the majority of users of Office, are not even of the level of a small business owner, but really just Joe and Jane consumer, college students, and bloggers. So this is essentially a false requirement placed on the product by the reviewer.

When I talk about a "better" product, what I am talking about is really an ease of use argument and the fact that it is a "new" product designed form the ground up as opposed to the clunky feature-bloated patchwork that is Office and the many Office-clones (free and otherwise) you can find. Office has numerous bugs, gotchas, and workarounds. For instance one that always bugged me is that there are two completely different and completely incompatible ways to do pagination in Word and rather than highlight them as what they are (different), Office hides them under the same interface fooling you into thinking they are the same. When one interferes with the other (say in a compound document), they fail completely but the user is left with no idea *why* the page numbers are not working, let alone a way to fix it. Another Word problem is the way in which it deals with any English language that is not US English (it basically doesn't). As an English speaker, I must have lost thousands of hours over the last ten years just trying to force Word to operate properly in this regard.

Office is literally chock-a-block full of these kinds of glitches and workarounds, whereas iwork is smooth, fast, and logical. Once you get used to the slightly different paradigm (because yes it is slightly different), everything works exactly as it should, is consistent, discoverable etc. iWork is an excellent product that is also an order of magnitude cheaper than Office and completely suitable for the average consumer, and right up to the level of a small business user or web concern. It won't be a choice that makes sense for a large corporation, but it's not intending to be.

Like most Apple products, once people discover it and get over the initial "this is kinda different" situation, I find they generally like it so much it's hard to pry it out of their hands. Which is why I suggested it would be good to port to Windows.

(apologies for the super-long post)

[amac4me]

Originally Posted by MacTel

With the iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and Xserve being absent from refreshes they'll need every bit of marketing help.

Apple should really license their OSX in a limited form. Meaning, allow licensees to build desktops and servers with OSX preinstalled but not their bread and butter laptop market. Apple seemingly cannot keep-up the refresh cycle with the industry in those markets.

It is tiresome to keep asking for an xMac, a more powerful yet less expensive Mac Mini, and an iMac that isn't so prone to faulty design and manufacturing. Plus the server and pro workstatoin line really isn't Apple's expertise.

Limited OEM licensing where it doesn't affect Apple's bottomline. That's what Apple needs to do.

Strategically, licensing Mac OS X would undercut Apple's competitive position, the delivery of an end-to-end experience. By controlling both Mac OS X and the machines on which Mac OS X is installed (Macs), Apple controls the ecosystem and can truly innovate. From a strategy and business perspective it boils down to differentiation and segmentation. Licensing would undermine these two advantages.

With respect to Broad based vs. Focused differentiation the goal for firms is to establish uniqueness while appealing to a broad range of customers. This is what Apple has done with Mac OS X and Macs, more so in the past few years.

Pursuit of growth ... So how should Apple grow?
The way to do this is to preserve and reinforce their strategy. Apple should concentrate their efforts to deepen their strategic position rather than broadening and compromising it. Hence, no licensing.

[lilgto64]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I've always wished that Apple would highlight applications that are Macintosh only.

Kind of like a "Only on Macintosh" campaign which would highlight the stellar Mac apps like.

Scrivener
Pixelmator
Panic's Coda
Delicious Library
Skitch
Xsliva Lightspeed

and more.

I think that PC users tend to only recognize the majors (well many Mac users as well) like Microsoft, Adobe, Intuit.

The thing is the Mac platform is defined by software software software and I know that Apple spends a lot of time and money developing credibility with the majors but it sure would be nice to see the little guys strut their stuff.

Once you start "looking" and enjoying apps from Micro ISV you can't stop. I thought the Mac Heist and Mac Zot bundles were stupid and gimmicky but like a drug pimp giving me a "Free" hit I got hooked. Now I need a freakin app to track my licenses.

Software is what drives our platform and the gems are coming from these small "labour of love" shops (yes I'm British now lol)

I think you are on to something there - they out to have a Pro Tower 8 core 30" monitor prominently displayed with demo versions of all software titles available for Mac only - and a banner over it - Only on a Mac - with maybe a notebook or iMac on the flip side of the table with all the same software - showing that you don't need to spend $10,000 on the computer to get the same apps.

Not sure if virtual software would qualify for that - but a machine running bootcamp and or VMware fusion or Parallels might help switchers as well - show that the Mac can do it all.

Could even make a commercial - what do you want to do? pick an App - it works on Mac - pick a Windows only App - it also works on a Mac with bootcamp or virtual machine - Want to try out linux - it works on a Mac. etc.

I have long thought that Apple commercials should show real people using real apps on the Mac.

[CU10]

Originally Posted by teckstud

...Simply open up Apple's OS to other hardware manufacturers.

Is Apple getting ready to license Mac OS X?

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by MacTel

With the iMac, Mac Mini, Mac Pro, and Xserve being absent from refreshes they'll need every bit of marketing help.

Apple should really license their OSX in a limited form. Meaning, allow licensees to build desktops and servers with OSX preinstalled but not their bread and butter laptop market. Apple seemingly cannot keep-up the refresh cycle with the industry in those markets.

It is tiresome to keep asking for an xMac, a more powerful yet less expensive Mac Mini, and an iMac that isn't so prone to faulty design and manufacturing. Plus the server and pro workstatoin line really isn't Apple's expertise.

Limited OEM licensing where it doesn't affect Apple's bottomline. That's what Apple needs to do.

I'd normally say "hell no" to Apple licensing clones, but perhaps you're onto something here. Apple is showing less interest in the general computing market, and more interest in consumer electronics. Perhaps the growth of the OS X ecosystem is being limited by the fact that it only comprises of a single computer vendor. Perhaps Apple needs to "outsource" some of its computer making operations.

People who buy laptops aren't likely to buy desktops, and vice-versa. Still, Apple's hardware is a high-margin business. Apple would have to license OS X in a way that's just as lucrative, yet doesn't serve to cripple clones that want to compete with Windows PCs.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

Doing battle with Microsoft on their home turf would be awfully risky. Microsoft currently sells MS Office on Mac because it makes them money. However, if Apple starts selling iWork on Windows to undercut office, then they risk aggravating Microsoft, who could discontinue MS Office on Mac, which in turn would kill a lot of the switcher market.

I've been in an Apple store and overheard at least on one occasion a student saying they absolutely needed Microsoft Office if they were going to switch to Mac.

I agree that it would be a risky "ballsy" thing to do, but Apple has done similar in the past. No one is sure on what Microsoft's reaction would be but they would get some really bad press if they did drop Office for Mac at this point. There is no way to interpret such a move as anything but petulant, self-serving, underhanded, etc.

My argument would be that putting iWork on Windows (and assuming it gets some traction) would go a long way towards eliminating that perception that Office is "required" before that kid would switch to a Mac.

As of the iWork '09 version I don't think the old saw about Office on the Mac being a requirement is really true anymore. It might take till iWork 10 for people to realise it though.

[Dorotea]

Originally Posted by deanbar

I only use iPhoto out of the bundled suite, I often read there are other better alternatives but I can't be bothered to change over. The rest of the bundled software suite I tend to agree with most of the PC crowd who call it "toy" software. In the mid 90's we had Avid software bundled with our computers, far superior to iMovie.

For the casual user, iPhoto and iMovie are great. I used iMovie to do a lot of conversions from VHS to DVD and it was really spiffy. Most users don't want Avid and its costs when iMovie is "free" when purchasing a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, etc.

[hmurchison]

I hear that MS licenses it's OS for about $40 a computer. That was a few years ago so who knows what Vista brings in and i'm sure it depends on the country.

Apple cannot live on $40 license fees. The increase in market penetration would mean nothing really.

I disagree that Apple doesn't have expertise in workstations. Anyone who's been around Apple for a while fondly remembers the IIFX or the 9100, 9600 series. Apple's always developed nice workstations if you paid the price. Don't try to tell me that a Dell or HP workstation is somehow superior i'd rather buy a Boxx workstation frankly.

The hardware is fine. I'm sick of reading about complaints. What's going to propel future growth and performance is software optimization. Everyone here seems to want to focus on beefing up the engine horsepower without modifying the transmission (sorry ..yet another car analogy)

Apple knows that it is doing folks. Snow Leopard is Apple "getting it" and realizing that they have to cut legacy cruft and move forward quickly.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

As of the iWork '09 version I don't think the old saw about Office on the Mac being a requirement is really true anymore. It might take till iWork 10 for people to realise it though.

As long as the corporate world uses Excel, Office for the Mac is a requirement. Name me any major corporation that uses Numbers 09?

[elpasi]

They always joke the back of an apple computer is more beautiful than the front of any other brand's.

How long before they say the underside of their desks, with the bags and printers etc. is more beautiful/useful than the top of a counter at any other store?

[paxman]

Originally Posted by Dorotea

For the casual user, iPhoto and iMovie are great. I used iMovie to do a lot of conversions from VHS to DVD and it was really spiffy. Most users don't want Avid and its costs when iMovie is "free" when purchasing a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, etc.

Focussing on software and in particular the iLife suite and iWorks is a good move. Apple is targeting switchers in their stores and they need to sell the usefulness and appeal of the Mac in a few minutes. iLife looks appealing and it is also aspirational - iLife and iWork makes digital housekeeping look fun. It is a 'hook', not much more, not designed to appeal to users of Coda, or Avid. So when potential switchers walk through the store, how do you convince them of the benefits of using Macs? Hardware is nice but the fascination soon vanes. The juice is in the software but it is a difficult thing to show. It takes too long. How many times have I gone in to an Apple store, or any hardware related store and poked the hardware, clicked a few icons and left? Focussing on the iLife suite and iWorks is exactly right. Apple should have instructional videos running on screens as well as having mini seminars showing how easy it is to, say, make a book. Like I said - its aspirational.

[Mr Underhill]

will seek to reel in passersby, window shoppers and the curious

Comic Genius

[paxman]

Originally Posted by CU10

Is Apple getting ready to license Mac OS X?

It won't happen. Apple want switchers on their own terms. Clones don't fit into those terms. SJ has repeatedly stated that numbers per se is of no interest to Apple. What would Apple gain form a licensing deal other than numbers? Money is important but Apple is flush with the stuff and it is not money that drives Apple. Under the present management Apple would rather fold than become another Dell.

[walshbj]

A lot depends on the kind of switcher you're after. There's a large market of people who take pictures and have no interest in trying out various third party photo apps. Many have been burnt by the crap that came with their camera.

My guess: Apple is after the millions of people with digital cameras who dread trying to do something with the photos on the computer. Making iPhoto their best bet to sell a Mac. We've all read about how many Macs Photo Booth closed the sale on. iPhoto is a candidate to do the same thing, using the face recognition as a lead-in.

I agree Garage Band is niche, I don't understand why something like that is included. Then again, I'm always shocked at how many people I know who are in a "band" or aspire to be in a band.

We all forget that there's a HUGE target audience outside the kind of people who read AppleInsider. They don't look at a computer the way we do. They don't want to research software. iLife included - that's all they want to hear.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by iReality85

I'm curious. What aspects of the iWork suite make it better than the Office suite? I've read in-depth comparisions of both, and reviews and comments point to the contrary. You can't just cough up a comment like that and not explain what it is about iWork that makes it "just a better product" than Office.

As one who admittedly uses Office, I find this interesting.

This caught my eye. As a Mac user you should know better than to compare products feature and capability to feature and capability. I have been a long-time Office power user and I'm very comfortable working around those programs (well, except in the latest Windows versions, which frustrate the hell out of me). iWork offers up all the regular ease-of-use, wow, and and innovation you might have always expected from Apple with some real capabilities, and that is what I love so much more about iWork than Office.

A while ago I downloaded the trial and forced myself to stop using Office whenever possible to give it a shot, and I was thoroughly impressed. Keynote and Pages are both much much better than Powerpoint and Word (though Word will always have more obscure features). The only one I'm iffy about is Numbers. As an Excel power user there are a number of features Numbers just doesn't have, such as frozen panes and it was also more limited in terms of formulas. They might have addressed the formulas limitation with the latest release but I doubt they've got frozen panes (correct me if I'm wrong on this one, anybody). Apple took a whole new approach to spreadsheets which isn't so compatible with this. But I must say--they have done some incredibly innovative stuff in Numbers, and it has some really awesome features Excel can't even touch. Most of my new spreadsheets have been created in Numbers but sometimes I still use Excel for certain old features that make certain tasks much easier.

Like the iPhone, you have to try it to truly appreciate what it has to offer.

[allblue]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

(apologies for the super-long post)

No apology necessary for such a well-written and intelligent post. It is encouraging that these pages still contain such useful contributions, despite the increasing number of OldWhiners and trolls that seem to have discovered AI, and the resultant tedium all round.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by allblue

No apology necessary for such a well-written and intelligent post. It is encouraging that these pages still contain such useful contributions, despite the increasing number of OldWhiners and trolls that seem to have discovered AI, and the resultant tedium all round.

I concur. Thought it was an excellent post myself. I think it encapsulated what I like about Apple. They appear to design software so that it's functional without succumbing to too much feature bloat. Not everything works great from the get go but the evolution tends to refine rough edges and add new twists rather than dump in a bunch of features that look good for marketing.

[iReality85]

Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande

This caught my eye. As a Mac user you should know better than to compare products feature and capability to feature and capability. I have been a long-time Office power user and I'm very comfortable working around those programs (well, except in the latest Windows versions, which frustrate the hell out of me). iWork offers up all the regular ease-of-use, wow, and and innovation you might have always expected from Apple with some real capabilities, and that is what I love so much more about iWork than Office.

A while ago I downloaded the trial and forced myself to stop using Office whenever possible to give it a shot, and I was thoroughly impressed. Keynote and Pages are both much much better than Powerpoint and Word (though Word will always have more obscure features). The only one I'm iffy about is Numbers. As an Excel power user there are a number of features Numbers just doesn't have, such as frozen panes and it was also more limited in terms of formulas. They might have addressed the formulas limitation with the latest release but I doubt they've got frozen panes (correct me if I'm wrong on this one, anybody). Apple took a whole new approach to spreadsheets which isn't so compatible with this. But I must say--they have done some incredibly innovative stuff in Numbers, and it has some really awesome features Excel can't even touch. Most of my new spreadsheets have been created in Numbers but sometimes I still use Excel for certain old features that make certain tasks much easier.

Like the iPhone, you have to try it to truly appreciate what it has to offer.

Although I am slightly confused as to the meaning and direction of your first sentence, whoever said I was a Mac user?

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

Well any review will have it's biases including mine. I spend a good part of the day every day training people how to use software packages in a University environment and troubleshooting their issues however so I think I have some insight into actual use.

I find most reviews of iWork to date have focussed on feature comparison with the classic "check-box" approach that really avoids talking about the average users needs, likes/dislikes etc. so when you read a review of iWork it's usually about how it lacks this obscure arcane feature or that, and how it's "not quite as good as office" as a result. The last version lacked a few fairly basic features like mail-merge etc. but the current version has pretty much patched up these holes IMO.

This kind of criticism gets less and less useful as the product approaches feature parity also. If you envision an exponential curve, you'll get what I mean. Down at the low end of the curve, if one product lacks a really base level feature like printing or scrolling, the difference is crucial. At the top end of the curve (where we are now), the inability to do some smaller feature that only a tiny subset of users need is far less critical and the general criticism of non-parity on features kind of falls apart.

A lot of reviews also focus on the business end of things and how iWork is not ready for business" (I disagree), and then mention obscure features that a fortune 500 company might find essential, but that the average small business user never encounters. They also never talk about the reality that the majority of users of Office, are not even of the level of a small business owner, but really just Joe and Jane consumer, college students, and bloggers. So this is essentially a false requirement placed on the product by the reviewer.

When I talk about a "better" product, what I am talking about is really an ease of use argument and the fact that it is a "new" product designed form the ground up as opposed to the clunky feature-bloated patchwork that is Office and the many Office-clones (free and otherwise) you can find. Office has numerous bugs, gotchas, and workarounds. For instance one that always bugged me is that there are two completely different and completely incompatible ways to do pagination in Word and rather than highlight them as what they are (different), Office hides them under the same interface fooling you into thinking they are the same. When one interferes with the other (say in a compound document), they fail completely but the user is left with no idea *why* the page numbers are not working, let alone a way to fix it. Another Word problem is the way in which it deals with any English language that is not US English (it basically doesn't). As an English speaker, I must have lost thousands of hours over the last ten years just trying to force Word to operate properly in this regard.

Office is literally chock-a-block full of these kinds of glitches and workarounds, whereas iwork is smooth, fast, and logical. Once you get used to the slightly different paradigm (because yes it is slightly different), everything works exactly as it should, is consistent, discoverable etc. iWork is an excellent product that is also an order of magnitude cheaper than Office and completely suitable for the average consumer, and right up to the level of a small business user or web concern. It won't be a choice that makes sense for a large corporation, but it's not intending to be.

Like most Apple products, once people discover it and get over the initial "this is kinda different" situation, I find they generally like it so much it's hard to pry it out of their hands. Which is why I suggested it would be good to port to Windows.

(apologies for the super-long post)

Thank you Virgil for a very insightful reply. I'll agree on the majority of your points, although I'm not entirely sure about the extent to which bugs, gotchas, and workarounds plague the suite, as I have rarely encountered such using Office '07. In fact, I'm one of those rare few who finds that Office version rather enjoyable to use (functionally speaking). I have to disagree, though, on the languages bit. I commonly type using Asian font (I'm a white guy, fyi) and have never run into any formating and display issues. Not sure if you're refering to the Mac verison of Office, to which I can't help you on that one. But any language (provided you've installed the font files to view and use them) from the Window's language toolbar is perfectly compatible within Word, etc.

I would give iWork the old college try, provided Apple were to release it into the wild. Especially Keynote, which I salivate for over Powerpoint.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

Originally Posted by iReality85

Although I am slightly confused as to the meaning and direction of your first sentence, whoever said I was a Mac user?

Haha... sorry. It didn't occur to me that you might be a PC user who can't even use iWork, though it should have. And that probably makes the concept of actually using the trial a little less realistic for you.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by paxman

It won't happen. Apple want switchers on their own terms. Clones don't fit into those terms. SJ has repeatedly stated that numbers per se is of no interest to Apple. What would Apple gain form a licensing deal other than numbers? Money is important but Apple is flush with the stuff and it is not money that drives Apple. Under the present management Apple would rather fold than become another Dell.

SJ has said a lot of things that eventually changed. Remember the infamous "hell has frozen over"? Or infamous iPod HiFi speech :"I'm an audiophile," Jobs said. "I've had stereos costing, well I won't say because you'll think I'm crazy. But, costing a lot more. And, I'm thinking of getting rid of mine for this." And DRM necessary, etc.

Dell is not Microsoft. Switchers will eventually stall unless the OS is sold to non-Apple computers.

[enzos]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

...
I find most reviews of iWork to date have focussed on feature comparison with the classic "check-box" approach that really avoids talking about the average users needs, likes/dislikes etc. so when you read a review of iWork it's usually about how it lacks this...

... whereas iwork is smooth, fast, and logical.

(apologies for the super-long post) [no worries mate!]

Amen, Brother Virgil! You're singing to the choir.

However, I teach chemistry in a university that is almost exclusively Wintel; and it is, in fact, a matter of small but 'mission-critical' differences in document layout, styling etc. that have me locked in to using the patched up, cobbled together, feature bloated, illogical mess that is the MS Office suite. If your job involves swapping and editing heavily styled documents with Windows users, it's just too much fuss and bother (last time I tried it) to use something carefully designed for a real human being.

-Enz

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by caliminius

So on the computer side, Apple is only highlighting two software packages: iLife and iWork (one of which they'll get free if they buy a Mac). Wow, that sounds, well, kind of pathetic. Not even going to attempt to make the Mac look like it has a good selection of 3rd-party apps...

1. why wouldn't they focus on the in house software that they don't have to share profits on

2. ilife is on every computer, free. iwork is the one you have to pay for and it is still half the price of Microsoft Office but can open the files from that package (sans the MS exclusive macros)

also, i have yet to see a store with a front register. which is the point of the handhelds, the printers and the bags which have existed in many stores for a while. a front register that you are going to walk by to leave anyway is not a big deal. it is that the register is back in the back in most stores that is the issue. you have to run a gauntlet to get to the register, stand in line and then run it again to get out.

and the focus on what you can do is definitely a good idea since most folks are not computer geeks and don't really know the difference between hard drives and ram. so what is going to win them over is what you can do with what you are getting rather than tech specs

Originally Posted by macFanDave

Now, if the Apple Store would load that software on a machine and maybe demo it, they can successfully sell copies.

the game there is that you can't just pick whatever you want and toss it on a machine. there are licenses to get, monies to pay etc. what's on those machines and even on their walls is carefully plotted out.