Apple should just support more OpenOffice.org. It's very MS-Office compatible (much more better than AppleWorks). If Apple loose MS-Office then there is OpenOffice.org. Apple should not develop their own office software, because it could take a long time. OpenOffice.org is best competitor for MS-Office and it's free application. Look what is happening in Linux world. Companies and towns etc.. are moving into Linux and they are selecting StarOffice / OpenOffice.org, because it's very close to MS-Office and compatibility between MS-Office and StartOffice & OpenOffice.org is very good. OpenOffice.org just needs Aqua GUI and that's it! Then we have very good Office solution.
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
Apple just should look more what is happening in OpenSource projects. Some projects are really good. Apple should put some money into those projects.
But again, aside form MS Office compatibility, Apple has most of what they need. If OpenOffice.org just has libraries for Office compatibility, Apple should use those and contribute to them, much like they use KHTML for Safari. Apple's attitude towards open-source is very smart. They don't sacrifice their front-ends at all, but rather adopt and extend (just don't extinguish ) open source as frameworks on the back-end. Apple can already reciprocate a good PowerPoint conversion engine in Keynote.
Then again, considering how those conversion engines have to deal with stuffon the front-end, I'm not sure OpenOffice stuff can be much good if Apple is just going to blow the doors off with leveraging its own graphics technology like they did in Keynote. The way everything ties into Quartz and Cocoa frameworks now, would adopting OpenOffice in any respect make sense? Would OpenOffice compromise the quality level of fit and finish in these apps?
Apple should not develop their own office software, because it could take a long time.
Quote:
OpenOffice.org is best competitor for MS-Office and it's free application. Look what is happening in Linux world. Companies and towns etc.. are moving into Linux and they are selecting StarOffice / OpenOffice.org, because it's very close to MS-Office and compatibility between MS-Office and StartOffice & OpenOffice.org is very good.
Again, if they adopt the file format. Then they will be compatible with OpenOffice and StarOffice. Different code bases can generate the same file format.
Secondly, just because something might take a long time to do is not a valid reason (in and of itself) to not do it. This is how great things get built. Someone works hard and takes a long time to do it. Dell, for example, builds what they build because it doesn't take a long time. It's easy.
Quote:
OpenOffice.org just needs Aqua GUI and that's it! Then we have very good Office solution.
And I would advocate someone taking this approach, though not necessarily Apple. This simply gives people more options.
Quote:
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
I disagree. I've heard before that the Mozilla code base is huge, bloated and ugly. Apple confirmed this. They evaluated both it and KHTML. They thought KHTML was a better approach. Again we need to focus and STANDARDS...not specific code bases. This is how we've gotten into this thing with Microsoft. We need STANDARD file formats for data (CSV, TDF, RTF, PDF, JPEG, PNG, EPS, SVG, HTML, vCard, iCalendar, etc.) and protocols for exchanging data (SMTP, NNTP, FTP, SNMP, HTTP, etc.) Then anyone can write any code they want to utilize and leverage these standards. Then you and I get to choose from a variety of good (and bad) implementations. But we don't get tied into a single vendor, because the formats and protocols are open standards.
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
Ooops...there goes any credibility in your post. I won't going into because the poster above handled that just fine. I don't care about Opensource. I want an Office Suite that is flexible...powerful and hopefully doesn't require 256mb to run.
If Safari is any hint.
If Keynote is any hint
Then I think Apple can do better than to just throw a aqua interface on some current Open Source code.
I dream of FileMaker7 - Honestly I do and if it was included in an Apple Office Suite (or a program like it) I would buy it just for that reason. I think that in terms of an Office utility the only thing the mac is missing is an Access Killer.
serrano: The biggest obstacle, I think, to replacing Word is replacing its functionality as a DTP app without enraging Adobe and Quark. I'm sure that sentence caused half a million DTP people to mash their mice on the Reply button in a red rage, so hear me out first: I know Word blows as a DTP app. But it has those capabilities, however superficially, and it is used that way, however unreliably. Apple can not do it, and find some other way to make up the difference, or they can build in DTP capabilities and do it right. But they'll be stepping on a lot of toes either way.
AppleWorks is as good of a DTP app as Word is. Adobe and Quark care less about AppleWorks why would Apple's Write application (my own made up name).
Besides Adobe and Quark really don't give a sh*t about the Macintosh platform anymore. It took Quark nearly 4 major OS revisions (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and soon 10.3) to produce a native version for OS X. How long did native PhotoShop take? Why is Mac Acrobat considerably different than Windows Acrobat? Where are Mac versions of Encore and where is the beta of Atomsphere?
Apple needs to draw the line in the sand and find out who is on their side and who isn't. If there not sided with Apple, then Apple should develope software/OS/hardware solutions needed to secure/attract users to the Macintosh platform (as in the case with Safari, FCP, DVD Studio, etc.).
Interestingly, he takes issue with how hard it would be for Apple to create an Office suite without access to Redmond code.
Of course, the same could be said for Safari...but that didn't stop Apple.
He makes good points. But with Cocoa, I'm not sure Apple would need 150 developers and there's no mention of the fairly solid rumor that Apple hired the Gobe Productive developers last year. Haddad wouldn't have missed that one.
At this point I'm really conflicted about the whole thing. I'm sure Apple has a suite in the oven, but I'm not sure which way's the course they should take.
Keynote and Filemaker show the Nexties "one-app-per-task" philosophy, while going the OpenOffice route with a proprietary interface is the road they took with Safari, and with the backend code Apple would contribute to OpenOffice.org, there's the potential OO could murder the MS cashcow on the Windows side.
And that's a great reason to do it.
The only thing I'm sure of is that if Steve unveils an Office suite on Monday, I'll order it regardless. Down with Appleworks!
I read this article and found it to be superficial analysis, containing some (minor) inaccuracies (e.g., Safari is built on KHTML, not Mozilla).
The author (along with others) claims a couple of things that are dubious (at best).
1. Microsoft's interest in maintaining Office for the Mac is strictly about anti-trust insurance. He also wonders why MS would continue to assign a large (for many companies perhaps, but not MS), 150 person staff to the Mac BU for such a small percentage of the computing market. Yet he fails to dig any deeper into this. He fails to examine the revenue and profitability of the Mac BU. A rough guestimate might put the Mac BU revenue at about $200-300 million a year. Not too shabby. And probably highly profitable at that. Perhaps not s "show stopper" for MS at large, but reflective of Apple's size of the market too.
2. Apple would have a lot of work on its hands to produce an Office equivalent. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The author is assuming that one NEEDS 150 developers to develop this software. This assumption is flawed (at best) and potentially very misleading. Does MS REALLY have 150 developers? Is is a total staff of 150? Are some testers? Documenters, etc? Finally, Apple has built a tremendous framework that could get them further along in word processor and spreadsheet with fewer developers, than many people realize.
3. MS dropping IE for Apple is some kind of retaliation or evil act. Perhaps it is. This is the prevailing assumption at this point. But maybe its not as evil as everyone thinks. Maybe Apple knew this was happening a long time ago. Maybe MS said, we're going to do this. We think the browser is now part of the basic OS shell. You probably think the same thing. Why don't you just go do it yourselves? We're going to integrate IE into the Windows UI shell. Perhaps there was even an opportunity to license the IE code base. Perhaps not. My point here is more in the lack of true analysis. The author in this article (and many posters and other authors) have simply jumped to conclusions (or at least have not backed up their statements with facts). Fact is MS is stopping continued development of IE for Mac. But why? We may not have ALL of the facts about the why.
My thoughts?
Apple has been working on an Office "plan B". They had to. They'd be stupid NOT to. How will they use it? Who knows. Only as a plan B? Go on the offensive? Hard to say. They might not even know the best way to use it. One thing for sure? If ANYONE has the balls (stupidity? arrogance?) to take on MS, its Jobs. Period.
I think you're right on the mark there, Amorph. The only real difference between a DTP app and a word processor, in essence, is the ruled page vs. the empty page. DTP uses text blocks, and Cocoa's text objects work just like a word processor in those block as it stands now. Assume that each new document in ths hypothetical word processor had a text block that by default covered the page from margin to margin. Then the user could just go back and resize the text block as desired. Want two columns? Easy. want a caption for that picture in your newsletter? Piece of cake. Or just don't touch the text block and type away. Apple could probably hide the DTP aspect by emphasizing the wp features that they would add: search and replace, header and footers, etc. They would keep the image/object tools pretty basic, so you can't manipulate the pictures, graphics/clip art or lines too much, at least not directly. Sort of like how Keynote's drawing tools are more basic than PowerPoint's but you can use other apps like OmniGraffle to make more complex shapes. This Document/Author/whatnot app would be even more basic with shapes and lines, allow easy import of clip art and pictures with more basic manipulations (rotate, scale). Keep the features specific to the task, and let the document be whatever it wants. Theoreticaly, if Keynote uses xml to write the file data, this app would use the same conventions, and could be opened in Keynote or any other such apps and vice versa (adding Keynote slides as a or into a word processor document).
This sounds almost like kWord, a part of the KDE kOffice package, that someone already has made a proof-of-concept port of, using QT/Mac (being released in a GPL'ed version at this wwdc !!).
I think an application using an enhanced kWord backend, with an Aqua UI, using the Openoffice file format (= basically the Safari approach) would be great for the mac platform, regardless of M$ plans..
LoopRumors (http://www.looprumors.com) is saying the the so-called "iWorks" has been postponed because Microsoft cancelled IE, and Apple is now concerned that they might do the same if Apple were to release an "iWorks" suite.
If this is true is pisses me off. It pisses me off that one lousy frappin' company (MS) has so much power that we are all stuck with mediocre (at best) and expensive crap for software (MS Office).
I'm hoping this is only a postponement...until Apple gets all of its "ducks in a row".
AppleWorks is as good of a DTP app as Word is. Adobe and Quark care less about AppleWorks why would Apple's Write application (my own made up name).
and there's a simple reason fro this: adobe and quark make their business on being extensible applications, through filters and xtensions. they can act like their minimalist at the core, but tout high-end capabilities if need be (and they are releved of the support fro these features, as they are carried by the third-parties who created them). look at quark, for instance. there are xtensions to quark for newspaper ad layout, imposition, etc. that are so massive and expensive that quark is simply a vessel for them to work.
also, word makes the cardinal sin of regarding all graphics as rgb, no matter how hard you try to force it otherwise. and everything placed in an ms file is converted to a .bmp file at rip, accounting for some bloody huge files getting tossed around a network (and lots of goofball postscript code that'll bring down you rip faster than you can blink and go "whaaaaa..?"). but rgb printing is fine for almost any household consumers needs (honestly, you start explaining rgb vs. cmyk to a newbie, and just watch them not care).
as long as word and apple's "write" or "document" or whatever remains non-extensible, except through scripts and macros, and they do things such as rgb printing only, then adobe and quark shouldn't care at all.
p.s. my typing skills are going to hell lately... i partially blame my own fatigued brain, and my wife's awful pismo keyboard. until i get my own rig in the next few months, please excuse any typos in the meantime. (maybe i should change my signature to this?)
and there's a simple reason fro this: adobe and quark make their business on being extensible applications, through filters and xtensions. they can act like their minimalist at the core, but tout high-end capabilities if need be (and they are releved of the support fro these features, as they are carried by the third-parties who created them). look at quark, for instance. there are xtensions to quark for newspaper ad layout, imposition, etc. that are so massive and expensive that quark is simply a vessel for them to work.
Yes. These are "platforms" not "applications" (per se), and that is WAY COOL. In my view many more applications than are, should be "platforms". Apple should be doing this with Address Book, iCal, Finder, Mail, iPhoto, Keynote, etc. And, who knows, maybe they will.
Yes. These are "platforms" not "applications" (per se), and that is WAY COOL. In my view many more applications than are, should be "platforms". Apple should be doing this with Address Book, iCal, Finder, Mail, iPhoto, Keynote, etc. And, who knows, maybe they will.
What do you mean? A program that is allows extensions or plugins is a platform?
Many Apple apps for OS X, the Cocoa ones anyway, do support plug-ins. Besides, many of these apps are just front-ends to frameworks, which should be extensible, if by other frameworks, no?
Anyway, the rumors of an extensible Finder sound nice, don't they?
i wasn't sure, but i agree. i mean, i'm a bit tired, but i can't think of an example where an app that allows plug-ins ISN'T something like a platform on par with indesign and quark (recall that one of the downfalls of pagemaker that adobe would kinda-sorta admit to was that it wasn't nearly as extensible as quark). then other examples like photoshop, or the huge audio apps...
word (and, hypothetically, a new appleoffice) would use scripts and/or macros only to enhance (or automate) the functionality already found within those apps.
and really, that's where apple could conceivably make a killing against word. supply some pre-built scripts that take your address book and make mail merges and mailing labels, and you've taken away a large part of why people use word to begin with. throw in some easy footnoting and table of contents features, and you've covered the long-document academic crowd (trust me, my wife would have killed for an app like this in creating her dissertation)... and the list goes on.
and really, that's where apple could conceivably make a killing against word. supply some pre-built scripts that take your address book and make mail merges and mailing labels, and you've taken away a large part of why people use word to begin with. throw in some easy footnoting and table of contents features, and you've covered the long-document academic crowd (trust me, my wife would have killed for an app like this in creating her dissertation)... and the list goes on.
not to toot my own horn, but as of today's panther preview (and the new mail aspect) comes this little nugget of joy (copied & pasted from apple's website):
Print labels
Do you like to correspond by paper mail? Whether you want to send holiday greetings to friends and family or send a printed newsletter to clients, Address Book can help by printing all your labels for you. No need to export records to another application. Address Book prints directly onto dozens of supported Avery, Avery metric and Dymo label stocks.
not to toot my own horn, but as of today's panther preview (and the new mail aspect) comes this little nugget of joy (copied & pasted from apple's website):
Print labels
Do you like to correspond by paper mail? Whether you want to send holiday greetings to friends and family or send a printed newsletter to clients, Address Book can help by printing all your labels for you. No need to export records to another application. Address Book prints directly onto dozens of supported Avery, Avery metric and Dymo label stocks.
So did Apple cave in to MS pressure to drop Office or is the new suite simply not ready yet?
The Filemaker Developer conference is at the end of August, and everybody's expecting FM 7.0. It'll be interesing to learn whether the box looks like Keynote's.
I've come to the idea that what I want most is for Apple to update AppleWorks to 7.0. But in concert with developing a Cocoa version, they need to silently develop versions for Linux and Windows. And use a common file format for all three.
That way, they have something they can use against MS if they threaten to drop Office.
I've come to the idea that what I want most is for Apple to update AppleWorks to 7.0. But in concert with developing a Cocoa version, they need to silently develop versions for Linux and Windows. And use a common file format for all three.
That way, they have something they can use against MS if they threaten to drop Office.
If that would happen I would crap my pants in happiness.
Ofcourse, this would only happen as long as the file format was compatible with M$ Office for spreadsheet, word, and keynote so that I could still get SOME work done.
Comments
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
Apple just should look more what is happening in OpenSource projects. Some projects are really good. Apple should put some money into those projects.
Then again, considering how those conversion engines have to deal with stuffon the front-end, I'm not sure OpenOffice stuff can be much good if Apple is just going to blow the doors off with leveraging its own graphics technology like they did in Keynote. The way everything ties into Quartz and Cocoa frameworks now, would adopting OpenOffice in any respect make sense? Would OpenOffice compromise the quality level of fit and finish in these apps?
Originally posted by Stratosfear
Apple should just support more OpenOffice.org.
Support? Yes. Adobt code base? Maybe. Adopt the file format? Definitely.
Apple should not develop their own office software, because it could take a long time.
OpenOffice.org is best competitor for MS-Office and it's free application. Look what is happening in Linux world. Companies and towns etc.. are moving into Linux and they are selecting StarOffice / OpenOffice.org, because it's very close to MS-Office and compatibility between MS-Office and StartOffice & OpenOffice.org is very good.
Again, if they adopt the file format. Then they will be compatible with OpenOffice and StarOffice. Different code bases can generate the same file format.
Secondly, just because something might take a long time to do is not a valid reason (in and of itself) to not do it. This is how great things get built. Someone works hard and takes a long time to do it. Dell, for example, builds what they build because it doesn't take a long time. It's easy.
OpenOffice.org just needs Aqua GUI and that's it! Then we have very good Office solution.
And I would advocate someone taking this approach, though not necessarily Apple. This simply gives people more options.
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
I disagree. I've heard before that the Mozilla code base is huge, bloated and ugly. Apple confirmed this. They evaluated both it and KHTML. They thought KHTML was a better approach. Again we need to focus and STANDARDS...not specific code bases. This is how we've gotten into this thing with Microsoft. We need STANDARD file formats for data (CSV, TDF, RTF, PDF, JPEG, PNG, EPS, SVG, HTML, vCard, iCalendar, etc.) and protocols for exchanging data (SMTP, NNTP, FTP, SNMP, HTTP, etc.) Then anyone can write any code they want to utilize and leverage these standards. Then you and I get to choose from a variety of good (and bad) implementations. But we don't get tied into a single vendor, because the formats and protocols are open standards.
I think also, that Safari web browser from Apple was mistake. We have now Mozilla browser and it's better than Safari, because most of the sites works with Mozilla.
Ooops...there goes any credibility in your post. I won't going into because the poster above handled that just fine. I don't care about Opensource. I want an Office Suite that is flexible...powerful and hopefully doesn't require 256mb to run.
If Safari is any hint.
If Keynote is any hint
Then I think Apple can do better than to just throw a aqua interface on some current Open Source code.
Originally posted by Amorph
serrano: The biggest obstacle, I think, to replacing Word is replacing its functionality as a DTP app without enraging Adobe and Quark. I'm sure that sentence caused half a million DTP people to mash their mice on the Reply button in a red rage, so hear me out first: I know Word blows as a DTP app. But it has those capabilities, however superficially, and it is used that way, however unreliably. Apple can not do it, and find some other way to make up the difference, or they can build in DTP capabilities and do it right. But they'll be stepping on a lot of toes either way.
AppleWorks is as good of a DTP app as Word is. Adobe and Quark care less about AppleWorks why would Apple's Write application (my own made up name).
Besides Adobe and Quark really don't give a sh*t about the Macintosh platform anymore. It took Quark nearly 4 major OS revisions (10.0, 10.1, 10.2, and soon 10.3) to produce a native version for OS X. How long did native PhotoShop take? Why is Mac Acrobat considerably different than Windows Acrobat? Where are Mac versions of Encore and where is the beta of Atomsphere?
Apple needs to draw the line in the sand and find out who is on their side and who isn't. If there not sided with Apple, then Apple should develope software/OS/hardware solutions needed to secure/attract users to the Macintosh platform (as in the case with Safari, FCP, DVD Studio, etc.).
Thanks
Dave
Here's the linky....
Interestingly, he takes issue with how hard it would be for Apple to create an Office suite without access to Redmond code.
Of course, the same could be said for Safari...but that didn't stop Apple.
He makes good points. But with Cocoa, I'm not sure Apple would need 150 developers and there's no mention of the fairly solid rumor that Apple hired the Gobe Productive developers last year. Haddad wouldn't have missed that one.
At this point I'm really conflicted about the whole thing. I'm sure Apple has a suite in the oven, but I'm not sure which way's the course they should take.
Keynote and Filemaker show the Nexties "one-app-per-task" philosophy, while going the OpenOffice route with a proprietary interface is the road they took with Safari, and with the backend code Apple would contribute to OpenOffice.org, there's the potential OO could murder the MS cashcow on the Windows side.
And that's a great reason to do it.
The only thing I'm sure of is that if Steve unveils an Office suite on Monday, I'll order it regardless. Down with Appleworks!
Originally posted by Frank777
Alex Salkever of BusinessWeek has weighed in on the Office debate.
Here's the linky....
I read this article and found it to be superficial analysis, containing some (minor) inaccuracies (e.g., Safari is built on KHTML, not Mozilla).
The author (along with others) claims a couple of things that are dubious (at best).
1. Microsoft's interest in maintaining Office for the Mac is strictly about anti-trust insurance. He also wonders why MS would continue to assign a large (for many companies perhaps, but not MS), 150 person staff to the Mac BU for such a small percentage of the computing market. Yet he fails to dig any deeper into this. He fails to examine the revenue and profitability of the Mac BU. A rough guestimate might put the Mac BU revenue at about $200-300 million a year. Not too shabby. And probably highly profitable at that. Perhaps not s "show stopper" for MS at large, but reflective of Apple's size of the market too.
2. Apple would have a lot of work on its hands to produce an Office equivalent. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The author is assuming that one NEEDS 150 developers to develop this software. This assumption is flawed (at best) and potentially very misleading. Does MS REALLY have 150 developers? Is is a total staff of 150? Are some testers? Documenters, etc? Finally, Apple has built a tremendous framework that could get them further along in word processor and spreadsheet with fewer developers, than many people realize.
3. MS dropping IE for Apple is some kind of retaliation or evil act. Perhaps it is. This is the prevailing assumption at this point. But maybe its not as evil as everyone thinks. Maybe Apple knew this was happening a long time ago. Maybe MS said, we're going to do this. We think the browser is now part of the basic OS shell. You probably think the same thing. Why don't you just go do it yourselves? We're going to integrate IE into the Windows UI shell. Perhaps there was even an opportunity to license the IE code base. Perhaps not. My point here is more in the lack of true analysis. The author in this article (and many posters and other authors) have simply jumped to conclusions (or at least have not backed up their statements with facts). Fact is MS is stopping continued development of IE for Mac. But why? We may not have ALL of the facts about the why.
My thoughts?
Apple has been working on an Office "plan B". They had to. They'd be stupid NOT to. How will they use it? Who knows. Only as a plan B? Go on the offensive? Hard to say. They might not even know the best way to use it. One thing for sure? If ANYONE has the balls (stupidity? arrogance?) to take on MS, its Jobs. Period.
This sounds almost like kWord, a part of the KDE kOffice package, that someone already has made a proof-of-concept port of, using QT/Mac (being released in a GPL'ed version at this wwdc !!).
I think an application using an enhanced kWord backend, with an Aqua UI, using the Openoffice file format (= basically the Safari approach) would be great for the mac platform, regardless of M$ plans..
If this is true is pisses me off. It pisses me off that one lousy frappin' company (MS) has so much power that we are all stuck with mediocre (at best) and expensive crap for software (MS Office).
I'm hoping this is only a postponement...until Apple gets all of its "ducks in a row".
Originally posted by Dave K.
AppleWorks is as good of a DTP app as Word is. Adobe and Quark care less about AppleWorks why would Apple's Write application (my own made up name).
and there's a simple reason fro this: adobe and quark make their business on being extensible applications, through filters and xtensions. they can act like their minimalist at the core, but tout high-end capabilities if need be (and they are releved of the support fro these features, as they are carried by the third-parties who created them). look at quark, for instance. there are xtensions to quark for newspaper ad layout, imposition, etc. that are so massive and expensive that quark is simply a vessel for them to work.
also, word makes the cardinal sin of regarding all graphics as rgb, no matter how hard you try to force it otherwise. and everything placed in an ms file is converted to a .bmp file at rip, accounting for some bloody huge files getting tossed around a network (and lots of goofball postscript code that'll bring down you rip faster than you can blink and go "whaaaaa..?"). but rgb printing is fine for almost any household consumers needs (honestly, you start explaining rgb vs. cmyk to a newbie, and just watch them not care).
as long as word and apple's "write" or "document" or whatever remains non-extensible, except through scripts and macros, and they do things such as rgb printing only, then adobe and quark shouldn't care at all.
p.s. my typing skills are going to hell lately... i partially blame my own fatigued brain, and my wife's awful pismo keyboard. until i get my own rig in the next few months, please excuse any typos in the meantime. (maybe i should change my signature to this?)
Originally posted by rok
and there's a simple reason fro this: adobe and quark make their business on being extensible applications, through filters and xtensions. they can act like their minimalist at the core, but tout high-end capabilities if need be (and they are releved of the support fro these features, as they are carried by the third-parties who created them). look at quark, for instance. there are xtensions to quark for newspaper ad layout, imposition, etc. that are so massive and expensive that quark is simply a vessel for them to work.
Yes. These are "platforms" not "applications" (per se), and that is WAY COOL. In my view many more applications than are, should be "platforms". Apple should be doing this with Address Book, iCal, Finder, Mail, iPhoto, Keynote, etc. And, who knows, maybe they will.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes. These are "platforms" not "applications" (per se), and that is WAY COOL. In my view many more applications than are, should be "platforms". Apple should be doing this with Address Book, iCal, Finder, Mail, iPhoto, Keynote, etc. And, who knows, maybe they will.
What do you mean? A program that is allows extensions or plugins is a platform?
Originally posted by kim kap sol
What do you mean? A program that is [sic] allows extensions or plugins is a platform?
Yes.
Anyway, the rumors of an extensible Finder sound nice, don't they?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes.
i wasn't sure, but i agree. i mean, i'm a bit tired, but i can't think of an example where an app that allows plug-ins ISN'T something like a platform on par with indesign and quark (recall that one of the downfalls of pagemaker that adobe would kinda-sorta admit to was that it wasn't nearly as extensible as quark). then other examples like photoshop, or the huge audio apps...
word (and, hypothetically, a new appleoffice) would use scripts and/or macros only to enhance (or automate) the functionality already found within those apps.
and really, that's where apple could conceivably make a killing against word. supply some pre-built scripts that take your address book and make mail merges and mailing labels, and you've taken away a large part of why people use word to begin with. throw in some easy footnoting and table of contents features, and you've covered the long-document academic crowd (trust me, my wife would have killed for an app like this in creating her dissertation)... and the list goes on.
Originally posted by rok
and really, that's where apple could conceivably make a killing against word. supply some pre-built scripts that take your address book and make mail merges and mailing labels, and you've taken away a large part of why people use word to begin with. throw in some easy footnoting and table of contents features, and you've covered the long-document academic crowd (trust me, my wife would have killed for an app like this in creating her dissertation)... and the list goes on.
not to toot my own horn, but as of today's panther preview (and the new mail aspect) comes this little nugget of joy (copied & pasted from apple's website):
Print labels
Do you like to correspond by paper mail? Whether you want to send holiday greetings to friends and family or send a printed newsletter to clients, Address Book can help by printing all your labels for you. No need to export records to another application. Address Book prints directly onto dozens of supported Avery, Avery metric and Dymo label stocks.
Originally posted by rok
not to toot my own horn, but as of today's panther preview (and the new mail aspect) comes this little nugget of joy (copied & pasted from apple's website):
Print labels
Do you like to correspond by paper mail? Whether you want to send holiday greetings to friends and family or send a printed newsletter to clients, Address Book can help by printing all your labels for you. No need to export records to another application. Address Book prints directly onto dozens of supported Avery, Avery metric and Dymo label stocks.
Panther? What about envelopes?
The Filemaker Developer conference is at the end of August, and everybody's expecting FM 7.0. It'll be interesing to learn whether the box looks like Keynote's.
I've come to the idea that what I want most is for Apple to update AppleWorks to 7.0. But in concert with developing a Cocoa version, they need to silently develop versions for Linux and Windows. And use a common file format for all three.
That way, they have something they can use against MS if they threaten to drop Office.
Originally posted by Frank777
I've come to the idea that what I want most is for Apple to update AppleWorks to 7.0. But in concert with developing a Cocoa version, they need to silently develop versions for Linux and Windows. And use a common file format for all three.
That way, they have something they can use against MS if they threaten to drop Office.
If that would happen I would crap my pants in happiness.
Ofcourse, this would only happen as long as the file format was compatible with M$ Office for spreadsheet, word, and keynote so that I could still get SOME work done.