or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools

post #1 of 111
Thread Starter 
Scroll to the bottom and to the right under "Additional Resources". Little slip on their part?



http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/podcasts/
post #2 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by rOckAPE
Scroll to the bottom and to the right under "Additional Resources". Little slip on their part?



http://www.apple.com/support/garageband/podcasts/

A slip alright...but it's been confirmed for years that iLife '06 would be released January 2006.
post #3 of 111
or a typo.

I thought they fired all the website "premature specification" folks back in 2003.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #4 of 111
Thread Starter 
You mean to tell me NOBODY noticed the NEW iLife'06 app called "iWeb" just above that???


www.homeonthemac.com/iLife'06_goof!.png
post #5 of 111
Holy crap. It sure sounds like Front Page for Mac don't it?

Long, long overdue IMO. Moreso than a spreadsheet app.

I hope it turns out to be true.
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
www.tektruth.com The next generation of CE writing and reviewing.
Reply
post #6 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by rOckAPE
You mean to tell me NOBODY noticed the NEW iLife'06 app called "iWeb" just above that???


www.homeonthemac.com/iLife'06_goof!.png

Interesting...I don't know if I just didn't notice it or if it was already gone when I clicked your link but it sure sounds like something that'll make RapidWeaver and Sandvox developers cry.

One of the Sandvox developer will surely fling his arms up in disgust. If iWeb turns out to be a webpage/blog/RSS/podcast creation app, this developer (also the creator of Watson) won't be very happy.
post #7 of 111
looks like it has been corrected.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #8 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
looks like it has been corrected.

Yep... it does appear to be corrected. It just says iLife '05 now and there is no reference to iWeb.
post #9 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by mmcgann11
Long, long overdue IMO. Moreso than a spreadsheet app.

Now let's not be ridiculous. There are multiple products on the platform for low-end web design.

We have yet to see a single Cocoa spreadsheet program.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #10 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
We have yet to see a single Cocoa spreadsheet program.

I don't think you ever will. Why? Spreadsheets aren't "creative." They don't cause you to "Think different." They're boring business apps and I don't see Apple creating one.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #11 of 111
A slip-up on Apple Computer's website on Thursday revealed that the Mac maker may be prepping a new version of its iLife digital life style suite that will include a Web design application.

iLife '06 with iWeb

Just before noon on Thursday, the company's Garageband and Support websites displayed links to non-existent iLife '06 product pages and listed "iWeb" as one of its included applications. Released last year at Macworld Expo in San Francisco, iLife '05 -- the current version of the suite -- includes only iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, GarageBand, and iTunes.

Sources had previously told AppleInsider that Apple was preparing to introduce a new Web design application during next week's Macworld Expo, which would integrate with the company's .Mac suite of Internet services.

The Web application, referred to as "Webpages 1.0" by AppleInsider sources, is said to draw heavily from components in Apple's "Pages" application to provide easy drag-and-drop capability for a variety of Web-optimized content and media types.

If Webpages and iWeb are one and the same, users of the application should be able to drag and drop everything from pictures and movies to widgets, iCal calendars and iTunes playlist into pre-designed Web page templates.

The application will reportedly bundle a set predefined modules with specific behaviors, such as: blank webpage; photo album; photo slideshow; movie album; blog; forms; comments; custom code (HTML & PHP) and; secure zone (https + authentication).

Enhancing .Mac

Members of Apple's .Mac Internet services may be able to purchase domain names (.com, .net, and .org) directly from within the Web application, sources have said. Alternatively, the application will allow quick and simple Web site publishing through a member's existing .Mac Web space.

Apple reportedly set out to design the new Web application in a way that it would enhance its consumer software offerings and drive subscriptions to its .Mac internet services (which it hopes will reach 1 million users sometime this year).

In an effort to provide better value against a plethora of free services on the Internet -- including those offered by Internet giants such as Google and Yahoo! -- the company may also slash the yearly .Mac subscription fee from $99.95 to an appeal price of $69.95, sources added.

To support the new Web application and its many features, .Mac is also expected to receive a slight upgrade to support PHP and SQL. Additionally, sources say the Web application may provide more custom options--including pre- and user-defined templates--for all Web pages published to users' .Mac accounts through iMovie and iPhoto.

iWork '06?

While sources have yet to offer details on upgrades to other iLife '06 applications, they say the company has been working to create a more consistent look and feel between all of its iLife digital lifestyle applications. Similarly, Apple has also been working on an update to its relatively new iWork productivity suite, which has not met with as much success as the company had hoped.

If reports are accurate, Apple had originally planned to introduce the Pages-based Web application (Webpages 1.0) as content creation software in iWork '06, but recently changed its mind to favor the digital lifestyle market.

iWork '06 is still expected to pack at least one new application, an Apple-branded spreadsheet application dubbed Numbers 1.0, along with updates to Pages and Keynote.

Word of the iLife '06 slip-up on Apple's Garageband Web site first appeared on the AppleInsider.com forums.
post #12 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
We have yet to see a single Cocoa spreadsheet program.

Who cares about Cocoa? Carbon or Cocoa doesn't matter to me... just add the spreadsheet app so we don't have to use NeoOffice/J.
post #13 of 111
if iweb 1.0 is like pages 1.0 it wont matter it will b e bugg ridden and missing major needed features or something will f up..
post #14 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I don't think you ever will. Why? Spreadsheets aren't "creative." They don't cause you to "Think different." They're boring business apps and I don't see Apple creating one.

It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.

And this is nonsense about "creativity" anyway. Apple is also about business. And business needs a spreadsheet. Appleworks had one. iWork had better get one as well. iWork is supposed to be the modern replacement for Appleworks. Appleworks has been one of the most widely used progroms in schools for the K-12 market, Mac and PC. If iWorks is going to replace it, it needs to have the same program set.

Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.

And, please, don't tell us how creative that is.
post #15 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.

And this is nonsense about "creativity" anyway. Apple is also about business. And business needs a spreadsheet. Appleworks had one. iWork had better get one as well. iWork is supposed to be the modern replacement for Appleworks. Appleworks has been one of the most widely used progroms in schools for the K-12 market, Mac and PC. If iWorks is going to replace it, it needs to have the same program set.

Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.

And, please, don't tell us how creative that is.

agreed. sometimes us "creatives" still have to pay bills and invoice people.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #16 of 111
Isn't AppleWorks too old to go the universal binaries route? I have iWork 05 and have long felt that it is the AppleWorks replacement. It needs a spreadsheet, a db (FileMaker Express?) and the wizards & templates updated from AppleWorks. At that point Apple will have a Mactel ready replacement for AppleWorks and can stop investing in it. I'm thinking that iWorks 06 will be a full suite and will be included with Intel based iBooks and Mac minis.

iWeb might be the key for increasing .Mac accounts - especially if the annual fee drops. I'm looking forward to that one.
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #17 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by kenaustus
Isn't AppleWorks too old to go the universal binaries route? I have iWork 05 and have long felt that it is the AppleWorks replacement. It needs a spreadsheet, a db (FileMaker Express?) and the wizards & templates updated from AppleWorks. At that point Apple will have a Mactel ready replacement for AppleWorks and can stop investing in it. I'm thinking that iWorks 06 will be a full suite and will be included with Intel based iBooks and Mac minis.

iWeb might be the key for increasing .Mac accounts - especially if the annual fee drops. I'm looking forward to that one.

Apple hasn't upgraded Appleworks for years. They lost interest in it.

iWork seems to be a replacement. But ir sure isn't complete yet. Maybe that's why it doesn't do well. Apple has been giving it away over the past year, with other purchased, in the hope that it will gain a user base.

I'd love to see that.
post #18 of 111
Quote:
To support the new Web application and its many features, .Mac is also expected to receive a slight upgrade to support PHP and SQL.

So... what does this mean technically? Will Apple be running PHP and SQL instances on their side. Or does this simply mean .Mac hosted pages can be linked to instances we're running locally?

The former would be ridiculously great.
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #19 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.[/B]

Sigh. This is not true. You can develop Carbon applications in XCode targetted at Intel.

I disagree with the OP that it's not important though. Cocoa apps have much richer support from the OS and better integration with things like services and standard dialogs. Just look at Pages or Keynote for applications which use Cocoa to the extreme. It's also sadly why some people who don't 'get' Cocoa, don't 'get' Apple's newer applications too.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
And this is nonsense about "creativity" anyway. Apple is also about business. And business needs a spreadsheet.

Some would say my accounting is quite creative. ;-)
post #20 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
While sources have yet to offer details on upgrades to other iLife '06 applications, they say the company has been working to create a more consistent look and feel between all of its iLife digital lifestyle applications.

As long as this means that Garageband will look more like the other iLife apps and not the other way around -- I am all for it.
post #21 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Apple hasn't upgraded Appleworks for years. They lost interest in it.

I thought it was more the case that the team left to form Gobe and create Gobe Productive for BeOS and then latterly for Windows. I had a copy on BeOS and it was a great tightly integrated suite that followed on logically from Works.

Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.
post #22 of 111
I hope iWeb can produce sites and pages that don't require .Mac! Even if Apple forces "iWeb" to use .Mac, and "WebPages" is identical but works with any server, that'd be enough.

It seems very smart to integrate iLife into a web page. Drag an iTunes playlist (eg "My 5 star songs") onto your website and have it automatically list all your favourites - with links to preview the songs from iTMS (and buy them!). Link an iDVD or iMovie for it to dynamically make a movie download.

ps. To the user that said "everything is going to be written in Cocoa" - that is wrong. Apple said everything will be written in Xcode - which is Cocoa or Carbon.
post #23 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.

I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.

Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.

If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.

As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.

Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
post #24 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.

That would be why the GoBe website hasn't been updated in a loooong time. ( www.gobe.com)
post #25 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.

We won't see the end of Carbon any time soon but judging from the past, Apple has methodically written new apps in Cocoa and rewrites of existing apps in Cocoa.

The only exception that I can think of was the Finder which started off as a Cocoa app in the DP1, DP2 days which was then replaced by a Carbon app.
post #26 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by sCreeD
So... what does this mean technically? Will Apple be running PHP and SQL instances on their side. Or does this simply mean .Mac hosted pages can be linked to instances we're running locally?

Well it WILL allow for RSS feeds to blogs, right?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #27 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sigh. This is not true. You can develop Carbon applications in XCode targetted at Intel.

I disagree with the OP that it's not important though. Cocoa apps have much richer support from the OS and better integration with things like services and standard dialogs. Just look at Pages or Keynote for applications which use Cocoa to the extreme. It's also sadly why some people who don't 'get' Cocoa, don't 'get' Apple's newer applications too.



Some would say my accounting is quite creative. ;-)

You're right, of course. I don't actually know why I said it.

Eagerness, I suppose.
post #28 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by tripdragon
if iweb 1.0 is like pages 1.0 it wont matter it will b e bugg ridden and missing major needed features or something will f up..

Think you'd notice?
post #29 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought it was more the case that the team left to form Gobe and create Gobe Productive for BeOS and then latterly for Windows. I had a copy on BeOS and it was a great tightly integrated suite that followed on logically from Works.

Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.

I'm pretty sure that if they had more to do, they would have stayed. As you know most programmers just work on code maintenance. But guys who work on front-line programs are a higher level of programmer. They get bored if they aren't challenged.
post #30 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell
I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.

Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.

If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.

As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.

Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.

Yeah, I realized my mistake.
post #31 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.

I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.
post #32 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabon
That would be why the GoBe website hasn't been updated in a loooong time. ( www.gobe.com)

Gobe software sold the rights on.

Here's a nice history of ClarisWorks including some on Gobe...

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php
post #33 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.

All right, all right already. Read my posts. I've corrected myself twice already.
post #34 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Gobe software sold the rights on.

Here's a nice history of ClarisWorks including some on Gobe...

http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php

Do you know who they sold the rights to?
post #35 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
All right, all right already. Read my posts. I've corrected myself twice already.

Fair enough. Sorry.
post #36 of 111
Grahhh... I would much rather a Photoshop Elements killer than a FrontPage killer. I'm so sick an tired of using Adobe products, and I really want to be able to use an Apple app instead... but they need to MAKE it.
post #37 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabon
Do you know who they sold the rights to?

AFAIK, some of the original programmers were trying to buy the code off the venture capitalists. The remaining Gobe.com company isn't them - it's a company set up to sell the finished software. Since they've got none of the original programmers left and I don't think any code either then that's why it's not changed since the v3.0 release.

I'd love to be corrected though.

It amazes me that since the BeOS version crashed and burned with Be going, they didn't produce a MacOSX version. But I guess with Apple hiring back 3 of the team and many of the Be engineers, that's worked out well for Apple.
post #38 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Nautical
As long as this means that Garageband will look more like the other iLife apps and not the other way around -- I am all for it.

How that? Seriously, GB is a ...uhm... production tool, while
the other iLife members aren't. So they naturally look differently,
because of their different tasks they made for. GB with its unique
look shouldn't be fixed in any way, because it is not broken.

imho
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #39 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
How that? Seriously, GB is a ...uhm... production tool, while
the other iLife members aren't.

And here I was, thinking iMovie and iDVD were used to produce, say, movies and DVDs. Too far-fetched of me, I guess.
post #40 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
And here I was, thinking iMovie and iDVD were used to produce, say, movies and DVDs. Too far-fetched of me, I guess.

Yeah, well I guess "produce" means different things to different people. We can also "produce" a document in Textedit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Apple's iLife suite may gain Web tools