zoolook wrote: »
I am fine with them taking this approach, like they did with FCP. I am not fine with them removing iWork '09 and all traces and support of it, until they close the gap. They want people to use their software (which I do) but then I become dependent upon it and hit issues when the functionality vanishes. Back to Office 2011 for 6 months then I guess...
And they removed them in the first place why????
pepechin wrote: »
And, by the way.... who's the genius at Apple that is seriously thinking in parity between OSX-iOS versions?. Trying to use old Pages 09 power in the only-one-app little iPad screen is simply ridiculous.
Power user and iWork in the same sentence? Come on man.
98% of the population is fine with the old or new iWork- but power users? It's laughable to say you were a "power user" who used iWork.
What about linkable text fields in Pages??I use and need this feature!
Please help me request this… a little later I guess.I went to Apple's feedback page and get this nice message "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable".I guess too many people went to further complain about their missing features.
I really hate this dumbing down of all the Apple apps.
I'm sure of that, but I'm not so sure that Apple boys knows it if they are selling iOS and iCloud parity with OSX.
As a matter of fact that is the origin of iWork 13 functionality slaughter
This announcement is very good news! If they'd done it from the beginning, they could of avoided all the backlash.
And just as with Final Cut Pro X, the defense "it's a brand-new version" is Apple being treated differently. Yes, it was receiving lots of complaints. But the complaints were generally dismissed and are still being dismissed by the Apple defenders. Would this happen for any other company?
Yes, it has happened for other companies. Such as the excuses and defensive posts made for Windows Phone 7/8, Surface RT/Pro and initial versions of Windows 8 by Microsoft fans. Again, what you claim is simply a figment of your imagination.
You realize they were making a sarcastic post, right?
ash471 wrote: »
I don't understand why they didn't clearly communicate this when they released the new version. They should have given power user's the heads up and/or had a beta phase. Duh. It isn't as if they haven't been through this before.
teaearlegreyhot wrote: »
In my opinion, the iWork'13 rollout was a fiasco of grander proprortions than last year's iOS Maps debacle (http://www.apple.com/letter-from-tim-cook-on-maps/). I wonder who Tim will fire over this? Eddy Cue is already gone....
Eddy Cue is already gone....
Since when exactly? Strange how Apple doesn't seem to know that he left the company...
Yes, I apologize for my error. I meant Richard Williamson, not Eddy Cue. Thank you all for catching my error. I have edited the OP to correct the name.
I think everyone is missing the big reason why they did this. They are not just doing iWork for Mac and iOS, but also for the Web.
I can tell you first hand, doing any kind of editing of text, especially Rich Text, is not an easy thing to do on the web. I look at it this way, they are making this to be a direct competitor to Google and their Web Apps. If they continue to add these features that people are wanting to all three platforms of iWork, this is going to be the de facto office application, even over Microsoft Office.
Yes, it is bare now, but be patient, continue submitting feature requests, and it will get there.
I opened a file to see how it would look in the new Pages. Didn't save, didn't edit, just closed Pages and found out my file was automatically converted to the new Pages '13 file format. So when I deleted Pages'13 to go back to Pages'09, my file would not open. Need to go back to backups to get it now. There should be some kind of warning (there was none!!!) before automatically changing a file's format.