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 - Page 2

post #41 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.

They're 'building a replacement to AppleWorks. They have to build one. Many designers and consumers need spreadsheets for basic accounting etc. I use a spreadsheet regularly and I'm in a creative field. Apple need to offer its consumers a free basic suite of applications for those who do not need the full office experience. Although I am aware iWork isn't free - it should be though. Well a basic app that's above TextEdit is needed anyway!

Keynote is a solid app so I can understand paying for that but an AppleWorks replacement should be free.
post #42 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.

Wrong.

Apple will release a Cocoa Spreadsheet.

More to the point, it must advance the strengths of Improv on NeXTSTEP with the strengths of Quantrix by Lighthouse Design that would make folks used to Excel comfortable.

Apple will eventually offer a complete Cocoa Office Suite. It's a matter of time. I expect them to use the OpenDocumentFormat where it makes sense. I also expect it to support the Office Open XML formats (12 in all).

Apple would be best served being able to interchange, based upon specific namespaces and schema which handle both sides of the fence.

Apple would separate itself with their implementation and strengths of app design.
post #43 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.

Are you sure?

That would explain why Apple evangelise it on their website though.
post #44 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yeah, well I guess "produce" means different things to different people. We can also "produce" a document in Textedit.

iLife is, and has always been, compromised of two types of applications: content creation and content organization. iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand create. iTunes and iPhoto organize.
post #45 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Are you sure?

That would explain why Apple evangelise it on their website though.

A lot of people don't know that apple owns it. It's under the name of Filemaker Inc.

They do that so when the professional catalogs have the pages for the various products, Filemaker doesn't come up as an Apple product, just Filemaker Inc.

There is still much resistance to Apple products in the corporate world. If some companies realized that Apple owned it, they wouldn't use it. So, this way, they don't deal with Apple at all.
post #46 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
There is still much resistance to Apple products in the corporate world. If some companies realized that Apple owned it, they wouldn't use it. So, this way, they don't deal with Apple at all.

Yeah I can understand that - I just wasn't aware!

Is there any proof anywhere out of interest?

Edit: don't worry found some
post #47 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
iLife is, and has always been, compromised of two types of applications: content creation and content organization. iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand create. iTunes and iPhoto organize.

I won't argue the point. But, iPhoto can also be used to "produce" a book for printing by Apple. So, some of this is blurred (no pun intended. )

But the original comment that was made referred to Garageband vs other unspecified programs in the suite.
post #48 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.

On the one hand yes, of course.
" 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 #49 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
They're 'building a replacement to AppleWorks. They have to build one. Many designers and consumers need spreadsheets for basic accounting etc. I use a spreadsheet regularly and I'm in a creative field. Apple need to offer its consumers a free basic suite of applications for those who do not need the full office experience. Although I am aware iWork isn't free - it should be though. Well a basic app that's above TextEdit is needed anyway!

Keynote is a solid app so I can understand paying for that but an AppleWorks replacement should be free.

I'll tell you what. Why don't you spend millions and come out with a app suite so all of us can tell YOU to release it for free.
post #50 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabon
I'll tell you what. Why don't you spend millions and come out with a app suite so all of us can tell YOU to release it for free.

AppleWorks was and is free and this is replacing it. iLife is free to all new Macs and Apple spend millions developing that.

Almost all PCs come with Microsoft Works for free. Apple need to offer something more than TextEdit - or put OpenOffice on or something.
post #51 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But, iPhoto can also be used to "produce" a book for printing by Apple. So, some of this is blurred (no pun intended. )

Sure.

Quote:
But the original comment that was made referred to Garageband vs other unspecified programs in the suite.

The original comment was that GarageBand deserves to have a different look based on the fact that it's the only iLife application that focuses on content production. I would strongly argue that. iMovie is in many ways for video what GarageBand is for music.
post #52 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Are you sure?

That would explain why Apple evangelise it on their website though.

Apple owns Filemaker Inc. Of course they will evangelize it.
post #53 of 111
BUT GarageBand is hideous! Why not make it more like Logic. Make iMovie like FinalCut and iPhoto like Aperture. Much better
post #54 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple owns Filemaker Inc. Of course they will evangelize it.

That's what I was saying - it makes sense now! It's the only app (excluding Office) which Apple puts on its front page.
post #55 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
BUT GarageBand is hideous! Why not make it more like Logic. Make iMovie like FinalCut and iPhoto like Aperture. Much better

Hideous in appearance? Or functionality?

None of the iLife apps are designed to compete in the same space as their professional counterparts.
post #56 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Hideous in appearance? Or functionality?

None of the iLife apps are designed to compete in the same space as their professional counterparts.

Appearance - I know they shouldn't compete and I know I'm more of a pro than a consumer but it would be nice to see the better aesthetics in the amateur programs, if only to inspire consumers more!
post #57 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
AppleWorks was and is free and this is replacing it. iLife is free to all new Macs and Apple spend millions developing that.

AppleWorks costs $79

iLife costs $79

Neither are free. Yes you get them with a new Mac but those aren't free either.
post #58 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Appearance - I know they shouldn't compete and I know I'm more of a pro than a consumer but it would be nice to see the better aesthetics in the amateur programs, if only to inspire consumers more!

Actually, I find the whole dark grey and small fonts pro appearance horribly annoying to use. And it's a tad dark too. If they did a Final Cut that used normal OSX appearance I'd be much happier.

I'm not a musician so Garageband doesn't interest me but it certainly is the odd one out in the iLife suite.

It'll be interesting to see if the iLife06 apps continue down the horrible mistake that is iTunes6's interface.
post #59 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
AppleWorks costs $79

iLife costs $79

Neither are free. Yes you get them with a new Mac but those aren't free either.

Ok, they should be free to new Macs - that's what I meant!
post #60 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It'll be interesting to see if the iLife06 apps continue down the horrible mistake that is iTunes6's interface.

I do like iTunes 6 but would prefer a platinum (mail) style design - without those horrible buttons, obviously.

I think Aperture has got the compromise right - not too dark and legible plus aesthetically pleasing.
post #61 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Ok, they should be free to new Macs - that's what I meant!

Nothing is free. You're paying for them with a new Mac too.

I imagine that when iWork is capable of doing enough of what AppleWorks does then it too will be included with new Macs and AppleWorks will be dropped. It's not there yet.

They'd have to add a spreadsheet, a drawing program and a database. If they do all that next week I'll be impressed and the credit card will be straight out for it although I suspect it'll be out anyway just for a Pages update.

I've no real interest in the Intel Macs at all just yet (6 months to a year maybe I will) but software improvements I want now.
post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Nothing is free. You're paying for them with a new Mac too.

I imagine that when iWork is capable of doing enough of what AppleWorks does then it too will be included with new Macs and AppleWorks will be dropped. It's not there yet.

They'd have to add a spreadsheet, a drawing program and a database. If they do all that next week I'll be impressed and the credit card will be straight out for it although I suspect it'll be out anyway just for a Pages update.

I've no real interest in the Intel Macs at all just yet (6 months to a year maybe I will) but software improvements I want now.

I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.

I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!
post #63 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I do like iTunes 6 but would prefer a platinum (mail) style design - without those horrible buttons, obviously.

I think Aperture has got the compromise right - not too dark and legible plus aesthetically pleasing.

It's not really the colour I object to although yet another different blue and grey theme you can't change that is different to the other blue and grey themes is annoying. It's the thin divider lines that don't change the mouse pointer when you hover, the lack of borders on dragable areas, ok/cancel buttons in dialogs and the horrible prefs with options hidden inside other options, the fake spotlight search which doesn't let you save a search, the radius on corners and buttons different to everything else on the Mac, the way drag and drop works in some parts of iTunes but not others, the busy pointer, the way you can't resize some panes....

You get the idea. ;-)
post #64 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.

I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!

I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.
post #65 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Sabon
I'll tell you what. Why don't you spend millions and come out with a app suite so all of us can tell YOU to release it for free.

If you add: then either open source or abandon it, you'd pretty much have Sun's software business model in a nutshell.
post #66 of 111
I can't wait.... iWeb. If it's good I may finally be able to stop using a windows based comp to make my sad website. It looks like it was made in 1995.
The bored one.
Reply
The bored one.
Reply
post #67 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Ichiban_jay
I can't wait.... iWeb. If it's good I may finally be able to stop using a windows based comp to make my sad website. It looks like it was made in 1995.

iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!

iLife06 is not available till next week, if indeed it does do what you're after anyway.


Why not use ...

RealMac's RapidWeaver - http://www.realmacsoftware.com/

NVU - http://www.nvu.com/

or any other of the editors currently availble.

or learn to code - http://www.htmldog.com

or ask a pro
post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.

Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing

Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)

Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.

I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0

How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing

Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)

Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.

I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0

How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?

It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.

Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.

High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.
post #71 of 111
I, for one, would love to move my blog to my .Mac account and give people an RSS feed for it. I could then integrate it into my .Mac site. I'm looking forward to iWeb and any improvements to .Mac.
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 #72 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.

Where are you based? If you don't mind me asking?
post #73 of 111
I think iWeb will be a client version of 'Homepage' that is available to .mac accounts. It will have the same templates, but we will be able to mix and match them on the same page and also arrange them as we see fit instead of being stuck in column format. iWeb will most likely be geared to work with .mac and some features might require a .mac account, but it will also work with any (most) web hosts.

It might seem like iWeb should be included in iWork because it is a productivity suite, but if iWeb is designed for people to build personal web sites then it makes sense to be included in iLife where people have personal/digital content
post #74 of 111
iWork will continue to lag in success until they figure out that it needs to go on windows also. The vast majority of people on macs are those in creative, education and scientific disciplines, only a small percentage regularly create or present documents that don't need to work with people on windows--especially in traditional business.

From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....
post #75 of 111
Don't get me wrong - I would cheer an all-out assault on the Redmond empire.

But realistically, I don't see it as necessary. Microsoft would go bonkers if Apple only adopted OpenDocument as the iWork file format.

That's really all we need to make things interesting.
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 #76 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
...
The original comment was that GarageBand deserves to have a different look based on the fact that it's the only iLife application that focuses on content production. I would strongly argue that. iMovie is in many ways for video what GarageBand is for music.

Absolutely. I didn't intend to argue about that subject.
My point of view was and is: GB is within the iLife suite
a, say, singularity. GB is a Music content creation tool
for Beginners.

Musicians - especially in the hobbiest field -
really like "different" GUIs. Apple serves this likeing.

My 2 cents
" 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 #77 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by futuretheory9
iWork will continue to lag in success until they figure out that it needs to go on windows also. The vast majority of people on macs are those in creative, education and scientific disciplines, only a small percentage regularly create or present documents that don't need to work with people on windows--especially in traditional business.

From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....

Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...

"How did you do that in Word?"

Arrrgh!
post #78 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.

Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.

High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.

I just don't see this. There's certainly some use of Filemaker in some sectors, particularly accounting, but it's dwarfed by Access (and JET/VB) and SQL Server in business and always has been in the Windows world. I've developed both Access and SQL Server (and Oracle) based software for businesses as big as American Express and the Bank of England and as small as a truck leasing company and never, ever were we asked to do a Filemaker based solution on Windows.

'Popular for web sites'. You're kidding! Maybe small catalogue based sites edited offline but again, MySQL, Postgres and SQL Server rule here.

Nobody would develop a serious DB application without SQL today.
post #79 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Where are you based? If you don't mind me asking?

I'm in the UK (near Manchester). Datacenter is in Atlanta.

Bandwidth in the UK is about 10 times more expensive than the USA which is why I use US based servers.
post #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...

Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.

iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.
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