Apple Document - Apple Branded word processor

I could just see this one coming. And what next?

Spredshet
Database.
With Keynote and Document.

We have ... iWork. the M$ Office killer from Apple.


[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Alpha Mac ]</p>

Oh no please not iWork. It sounds like Office light. This needs to be Office OS (on steroides)

It needs to be in the Pro area of Apple software (DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro). So something ***** Work Pro (Power Work Pro, Data Work Pro or even Office Work Pro).

The price doesn´t have to be in the FCP area though. Slightly lower than Office. Low enough to be attractive and high enough not to be a loss for Apple. And thinking about what a money making machine Office is for MS that price could actually be considerable lower than that.

[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>.... And thinking about what a money making machine Office is for MS that price could actually be considerable lower than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Let's not lose perspective of how many units Microsoft ships in comparison to how many Apple would even be capable of shipping

I´m quite comfortable that if they made a package that was just on pair with Office:X they would sell much better than that given they were able to make its competitioness clear to the mac users (Basically they´ll have to say "This is completly different and better than AppleWorks").

Lets see in half a year. Then Safari hopefully have been out as a 1.0 release for a couple of month. Lets see how many newer Mac users that prefer that over IE.

[quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:
<strong>Oh no please not iWork. It sounds like Office light. This needs to be Office OS (on steroides)

It needs to be in the Pro area of Apple software (DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro). So something ***** Work Pro (Power Work Pro, Data Work Pro or even Office Work Pro).

The price doesn´t have to be in the FCP area though. Slightly lower than Office. Low enough to be attractive and high enough not to be a loss for Apple. And thinking about what a money making machine Office is for MS that price could actually be considerable lower than that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Office suites will have to get a LOT cheaper than they are currently. I had no idea that M$ sells an Office for Students and Teachers (Retail) on the PC side, I was surprised at the reasonable price. But alas the regular price will have to look more like that within the next 5 years than the inflated price it carries now. Schools and local governments are starting to think, "Office" just isn't worth it anymore -- TOO EXPENSIVE. They're even looking at open office type alternatives. M$ is so big that it ain't ever going away, but they can't exactly afford to lose the cash Office generates. They're stuck in that they can't drop the price too much, but they'll probably start losing a whole whack of sales if they don't. It's just a matter of time -- The commodity market comes knocking on everyone's door, not just Apple's, M$ ain't immune either -- funny cause this is software, but it is set to fall.

Enter Apple.

It seems to me that they're building their Office alternative on piece at a time. iCal, Keynote, iSync, Mail... with a slightly different philosophy about bundling. The oportunity to really get back some lost edu sales is right theree in front of them: BUNDLE iOFFICE/pro-OFFICE FREE with EVERY mac! Suddenly the iMac/eMac/PM prices Apple charges to schools don't look quite as ridiculous -- not when your machine includes all your licenses at no extra cost right out of the box (and no yearly extortion!)

Face it, that's value. Schools and business, and consumers too, NEED Office. They might WANT iLife, but they can't BUY a computer unless it comes with Office.

The only thing I could see is a tiered Office suite, with an i and pro version, but the FULL word processor and Spreadsheet MUST be included FREE. Apple might charge for additions including things like Keynote but that really ought to be included aswell. Mebbe the database, but again, the price needs considerably cheaper than Filemaker.

Apple is in a rare position to use software to propel hardware sales, iLife is not the suite to do that. They not to stop the bleeding in education and add some real value for the home/small business user or they won't ever grow. Not to mention chop prices, though if they're looking for ways to stave that off, adding some software people really need is a great way to partially justify your prices.

[quote] I could juts see this one coming. And what next?
Spredshet
Database.
With Keynote and Document.

We have ... iWork. the M$ Office killer from Apple.
<hr></blockquote>

I will never really understand this. For me, a lot of the appeal of Apple products, is that I am able to avoid living in a computing landscape dominated by arrogant MS homogeny. A world that embraces open standards while still leaving room for 3rd party developers to flourish and produce great software.

In the last few months on this board, it seems that the prevailing sentiment in the Mac community is that they are willing to accept this, as long as it is Apple who provide us with our bleak, homogeneous computing experience.

We cheered when Safari came out "Yay, finally companies like Omnigroup, and the people behind Chimera can go to hell"

Now we look forward to another bland, elitist, brushed metal program to further consolidate our lil gated community.

This is not meant to be an attack, although I am sure that there are those who will interpret it as such. It simply makes me rather sad to think that in a few years most of you will own Macs with nothing but minimalistic, bland, apple branded isolutions installed on them, and while Apple may thrive, the "Mac community" will be gone forever.

"Thinking Different" isn't simply choosing to blindly march to a slightly hipper beat.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>

I guess what constitutes "bland" is in the eye of the beholder.
What I am kind of concerned about though is that Apple continues to step on the toes of third party developers. If this continues, there may come a day when the only option for Apple computers is Apple software.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: ryukyu ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by ryukyu:
<strong>I guess what constitutes "bland" is in the eye of the beholder.
What I am kind of concerned about though is that Apple continues to step on the toes of third party developers. If this continues, there may come a day when the only option for Apple computers is Apple software.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is a concern, but is Apple just supposed to sit on its heels on application software? Competition is the name of the game, and Apple is certainly entitled to enter this game, especially if other companies' software releases for OSX are slow or incomplete (eg. Word for OSX).

However, competition should be fair. The important thing is for Apple to ensure, unlike what Microsoft has done for Windows, is that third-party developpers are given a level playing field in development opportunity/information and that compatability between competing products is encouraged, rather than cut off.

[quote]Originally posted by Chinney:
<strong>

This is a concern, but is Apple just supposed to sit on its heels on application software? Competition is the name of the game, and Apple is certainly entitled to enter this game, especially if other companies' software releases for OSX are slow or incomplete (eg. Word for OSX).

However, competition should be fair. The important thing is for Apple to ensure, unlike what Microsoft has done for Windows, is that third-party developpers are given a level playing field in development opportunity/information and that compatability between competing products is encouraged, rather than cut off.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't disagree with you, but, like you said, it is a concern.

The problem is that as many developers are finding out, there is no competing with Apple. The reality is that if there is an Apple branded solution (even if it be an inferior one) the majority of Mac users will use it.

How many people do you think would have downloaded Safari it it had been announced at MacWorld by say, Jim Spiggot Studios in Alabama??

The answer is 1, and that would be by Jim's mother.

We are screaming out for Apple to "step up to the breech", and provide us with solutions. Adobe has voiced this concern in regards to Apple software; that they can compete with everyone out there but Apple.

It is one of the unique facets of the Mac community, and is, in my opinion a great cause for concern. Even amidst all the jubilation over the release of Safari.

This is a theme that has really emerged in the past couple of years, and intensified with the adoption of OS X. Apple wants to control every aspect of the user experience. From the boot-up screen, to shut down and everything in between.

How many of us would not use an Apple "Office" program? How many of us would not jump if Apple produced it's own .html editor, or a drag and drop vector graphics/animation suite that outputs .swf??

But, who cares about the Adobe's and Macromedia's of the world, right? We can always just log in to Appleinsider and whine about their awfull support for the Mac platform.

"Thinking Different" isn't simply choosing to blindly march to a slightly hipper beat.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>

Watson, people use it, buy it, like it in sufficient numbers. Even Premiere, inferior as it may be, still has lotsa users. Little developers with important little Apps are a good thing. When we're talking about Office, who really competes with M$??? Corel? IBM? Nobody basically, and certainly not any little developers. Office-suites will become the first commodity software in the next 4-5 years. So what if it kils nissus or something like that, would nissus even have a chance in the windows world? Compete or die, it isn't that hard. iLife offers lotsa opportunity for 3rd parties to compete. They can make plug-ins, tons of useful little helper apps, they can make competing product.

The simple fact is that Apple needs to have a top shelf Office suite of its own design and it has to "give" most of it away with their hardware if they hope to expand or even keep their marketshare, especially in education.

Nicely put, and I agree. In Apple's defense though, I have to say that most of their software is unbelievable well thought out, if a little lacking in speed.

[quote]Originally posted by warpd:
[QB]The problem is that as many developers are finding out, there is no competing with Apple. The reality is that if there is an Apple branded solution (even if it be an inferior one) the majority of Mac users will use it.

[...]

We are screaming out for Apple to "step up to the breech", and provide us with solutions. Adobe has voiced this concern in regards to Apple software; that they can compete with everyone out there but Apple.<hr></blockquote>


Good points. I guess, however, that an argument could be made that word processor software is a special case. What is there, really, for OSX as full featured word processor hardware? Microsoft Word is pretty much it, I think. And will Microsoft continue to develop/improve it? I am not sure. This really is a case where Apple is justified in stepping into the breech.

In other software areas, the concerns might be greater. Perhaps, for example, Apple should make an effort not to tread too hard on Adobe's shoes.

One more point, however, is that I don't think that Mac users would continue to use real dog software applications just because they were produced by Apple (I am not referring to any particular product here - just speaking speculatively). There might be a high initial download rate- especially if the software were free - but I think that the Mac Universe is discriminating enough to reject bad software. It is also discriminating enough to buy good software produced by third-pary developers.

Let's just hope that if Apple does do this, which we have to believe they will, that they come out of the chutes with a much better effort than their latest iapps.

This app can't just kinda sorta be compatible with Office. It has to be as close to perfectly compatible as possible. Nail it.

This is critical for those of us that work with the PC corporate world. Of course, if Apple keeps their current train of thought and simply aims this at the home or small business consumer, then they will still get many to use it but it won't cut it above that.

What I am most worried about is the fact that MS always makes their apps a moving target. Slight changes all of a sudden and wham, the translator does not work any more. Tables come to mind in Word.

I however, can't wait for Apple to crash this out to the public. It has taken small developers too long to make this happen and it is questionable if they have the resources to do it. MS has done it for us but at a very steep price.

Until then, I will continue to use Office X.

I think the iApps are maybe killing the entry-level apps like them, but they (should) introduce APIs and frameworks so developers can build on their technology to create more advanced apps.

The difference with apps like Keynote, FCP/FCP Express and this rumored Document (I liked the name "Thesis" someone threw around a while ago) app is that you have to pay for them. I would assume like Keynote that it would be $99. I think it keeps developers in a competitive market. Besides, Apple is doing this because no one else has either done this or they don't have the resources to do something this compatible and clean (in terms of the UI). Also, personally, I haven't bought Keynote because I haven't had the chance or ability to take it for a test drive. There are things that other software makers can do that Apple either doesn't or won't do for potential users like this. As long as Apple charges (appropriately) for these apps, I think third parties still have room to play.

An Apple Office suite ought to be FREE with the purchase of a new mac, moreso than iLife. Perhaps a tiered system with an iCore and ProExtensions, but a highend word processor and spread sheet ought to be included given the prices we pay. It's also about the only thing with a chance of getting Apple back into a strong edu position.

If any of this is true, it looks like the clamouring for a true OS X Appleworks may be silenced.

/me gets ready to save some money up...

[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong> I would assume like Keynote that it would be $99. I think it keeps developers in a competitive market. Besides, Apple is doing this because no one else has either done this or they don't have the resources to do something this compatible and clean (in terms of the UI). Also, personally, I haven't bought Keynote because I haven't had the chance or ability to take it for a test drive. There are things that other software makers can do that Apple either doesn't or won't do for potential users like this. As long as Apple charges (appropriately) for these apps, I think third parties still have room to play.</strong><hr></blockquote>

With a few of the problems with Keynote, and the high expectations of some of the users, I would rather they released a product as a time-limited beta first and had some consistent feedback to determine the best direction for the product regarding what people want/expect it to do.

Keynote was touted as a Powerpoint replacement, but I don't think anyone at Apple really knew how people used Powerpoint. Now they are starting to find out what people want/need/expect and those who paid $99 for it feel like they have been taken advantage of.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: nosey ]</p>

If keynote is the first of a serie of Office apps then I think its a shame they started with the least useful app. People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer. And people thought that the computer would speed thigs up and make everyone more productive but they forgot what the combination of marketing-type people on all levels and Powerpoint can do to a company.

I suppose it's likely the former Gobe guys are working on this.

So you are saying that a powerpoint type program is useful because CEOs of big companies are using them when making public announcements?

I´m all for giving Steveo his very own program but that doesn´t change the fact that the devil gave us presentation programs. Hell. I make a living by producing slide show presentations of things that could much more effectively be presented in a normal wordprosessing document.

Presentation software is right up Apple's alley since it's the looks that matter so much. I think that's why Apple did that first. Sales depend so much on just looking good to the client or even your peers. Sure you can do the same thing in a word document or even HTML, but would it (or could it) look the best? This is at least how I approach presentations, with or without software slide shows.

I'm not clear on what your beef is about presentation software. Seems like it's more about the evils of sales and persuasion than the software itself.

Presentation software presents less - much less - while seeming to deliver more. It is not only a method for some speakers to dish out half-baked ideas in a fancy package, but is an evil tool that actually sucks the meaning out of presentations that would provide some substance. The audience goes into a state something like a trance as they focus on the screen, instead of the speaker.

But people do love it. Where I work, it is almost impossible to deliver a presentation without being asked to use it. Indeed, I have been told that it is not considered professional to give a talk without it.

Then again, people also love television.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Chinney ]</p>

I had a prof who thought the same thing, in a grad class no less. I consider the notion flatly idiotic. If nothing else, Humanities types gather round to talk about something, and I find that nothing kills a "talk" faster than a TV type graphic for everyone to zone out with.

You can do powerful stuff too, but unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on. At first I knew of this phenomena amongst business profs, and noticed it creeping into psyc and edu, but it's spreading. The day an English prof walks in with this set of expectations, I quit.

I have to admit that as a newbie prof, I use it to remind *myself* where I am in the talk, what's coming up next, etc. Works better than lecture notes on the podium.

Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes. (Heck, I was nice - I handed out the PP slides, 3 per sheet, as class notes, with three slots for them to jot notes. Was a ready-made outline for them to fill in with real content. If they *just* followed the outline during studying, they could probably squeak by with a C. Maybe.)

If I were more creative, or had more experience with the material, I'm sure I'd do it differently. It wasn't unusual for me to have only about 8-10 slides for a 50 minute talk though. I prefer discussion.

[ 01-27-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Chinney:
<strong>Presentation software presents less - much less - while seeming to deliver more. It is not only a method for some speakers to dish out half-baked ideas in a fancy package, but is an evil tool that actually sucks the meaning out of presentations that would provide some substance. The audience goes into a state something like a trance as they focus on the screen, instead of the speaker.</strong><hr></blockquote>

If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.

The flexibility and helpfulness Powerpoint offers has been priceless for me though. Seamless slide transitions and no hassles with presenting diagrams or graphic representations for everybody to see. Not to mention cost savings.

When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.

That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.

[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>Of course, I use it as sparse reminders, without real content. For *that*, they have to be listening and taking notes. (Heck, I was nice - I handed out the PP slides, 3 per sheet, as class notes, with three slots for them to jot notes. Was a ready-made outline for them to fill in with real content. If they *just* followed the outline during studying, they could probably squeak by with a C. Maybe.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

At the university where I spent time last year they've moved away from forcing people to take notes for one simple fact, they normally don't listen. Sure they listen and take notes but they kept finding students didn't really understand what was said because they were so frantically taking notes. It's like tutoring sometimes. If you read it in a textbook it doesn't quite have the same sense or effect as if you actually watch someone explain it.

Notes, even just powerpoint slides (often just looking at slides with abbreviated points will help you recall a talk significantly better) with referenced page numbers, and giving students the opportunity to listen they found worked a lot better.

Another technique I saw used was they handed out basically all the notes but left gaps so people had to pay attention in particular areas.

That said that was the engineering department where a lot of what you do is fact based and not interpretive. Needs vary from department to department but I'm always inclined to say give the students a break, mainly because I remember I was always a horribly slow writer

Two common misconceptions:

[quote]People thought computers would make the world use much less paper but they forgot to ban the printer.<hr></blockquote>

When people originally referred to the paperless office they were referring to the storage of data. Computers have completely revolutionised this area thanks to the miracle of relational databases. Card indexes, filing cabinets etc. have taken a beating that they're not going to recover from.

On the other hand, paper as a medium for conveying information, that you can interact with on a tactile level, is unbeatable and will remain so for many years to come.

Print it, score things out, hand it round, doodle on it, make notes in the margin, the functionality is endless and its user interface is unparalleled.

[quote]The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>

Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.

You might be thinking of technologies which are often argued to be neutral until they are used for some end.

Think about how the design of a tool allows you to easily achieve some ends but makes others difficult.

Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.

Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.

[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Tools aren't neutral, especially one as complex as presentation software.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it. A tool is an inanimate object after all whether it be software or a hammer.

[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong>Apple's iApps for example are aimed at the beginner and make easy tasks easy but limit the more experienced as you can discover by listening to the complaints of those on this forum.

Powerpoint is not designed to produce good presentations, by any reasonable definition of the term, as that is not what the people want.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That isn't the fault of Powerpoint as much as lack of knowledge on the users part. There is the ability to produce very good presentations with powerpoint if you actually know what you are doing. To say otherwise is akin to saying a hammer is a bad tool because whenever I hit a nail it bends over and doesn't go straight. That isn't a fault of the hammer but of the user.

Presenting is one of the hardest tasks for most people and most people don't do it well. Throw complexities and options at people in the form of a more unintuitive app and people will just mangle the presentation even worse than normal because they don't really understand what they are doing with the tools available.

It's why a beginner is better served by simple applications while a professional can deal with the options provided by more high end applications.

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>
Tools are always neutral. The design might be more condusive to one method of use but ultimately the tool has no favourtism only the programmer behind it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you claiming that someone given the task of getting coconuts from a tall tree wouldn't be influenced by being given different tools? For example some TNT, a chainsaw or a slingshot.

In what sense are they neutral? They infuence what you can and can't do easily, what you can't do at all, they even influence how you think about the problem.

Have you never heard the Maslow quote:
[quote]If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail.<hr></blockquote>

Note I'm not blaming MSFT, their software eventually does roughly what people want, the problem is people generally have no idea what they need. This is especially true in the case of PowerPoint presentations.

Give people PowerPoint to produce a presentation and they will create a powerpoint presentation but most of the emphasis will be on powerpoint, not presentation.

And the reason for this is that people don't know how to create presentations, and PowerPoint doesn't help them (note: Keynote seems to suffer from the same problems).

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
If your audience goes into a trance while they look at the screen then there is something distinctly wrong with your presenting techniques not the presentation software.<hr></blockquote>

Nothing in my message indicated that I was despairing about my own presentations or their reception by audiences. I don't think that I mentioned my own presentation methods. Clearly, my comment was directed at the effect of presentation software in general. (Indeed, this effect is easier to evaluate as a member of a audience, rather than a presenter.) Your unsupported comment about my own presentations was something of an unjustified personal slam.


[quote]When properly utilised presentation software should really help make your point by allowing you to present it in a far more orderly and professional manner.

That said far too many people go nuts on effects and if there is no substance to your presentation or the presenter is boring it won't matter whether the software is there or not. The presentation software itself is just like any tool though its neutral.<hr></blockquote>

I was an early enthusiast about presentation software. This enthusiasm soon waned, however, as I saw how it was being used and received. You may argue that the tool is neutral, but what I see is a tool that is being very, very much misused.

As I indicated earlier, my own view is that presentation software often detracts from presentations that would otherwise be of substance. The 'trance' effect that comes into play when an audience stares at a screen has been well-documented in studies of television viewers.

My greatest complaint is not about presentations which go "nuts on effects" but about presentations which become nothing more than a monotonous stream of slides with bullet points. Unfortunatly, this happens all too often.

I agree with Matsu: "Unless you're presenting something expressly visual why use the medium just for the sake of using it? Present art, photos, film, audio? Yes by all means talk around it, or through it, if it pertains to the subject, but just to throw up a few bullets? Come on."

Presentation software should be used sparingly and with a purpose, not as the default. If you want to show the audience something in particular, then go ahead. Otherwise, give us all a break.