The parallels here with the rumors of Apple using Mozilla for a browser. OO is bloated and needs work. Apple can probably take the core of AW and build on top of that into a new app filled with Cocoa goodness.
Which is different, as there was a better open source solution in KHTML. Apple took KHTML, cleaned it up a bit, built a QT translation library and wrote an interface for it. And we all know how easy it is to write interfaces in Mac OS X.
What is their besides OpenOffice though (which runs fantastically on my PC)? KOffice? AbiWord? Come on. emacs on eMacs?
Writing an office suite from scratch is a huge job, which is why we are seeing it done peice-meal, with Keynote first.
Writing an office suite from scratch is a huge job, which is why we are seeing it done peice-meal, with Keynote first.
.
That sound reasonable. Not being a programmer myself, I can't tell which open source alternative is better to start with, but is seems obvious that both AppleWorks, Openoffice are to complex to use as a foundation for a new office suite, considering they already have the presentation application, the browser, calendar and the email apps. But what are the technical reasons for not reusing some of KOffice.
What is lacking (in my opinion):
1. We still miss a built-in notetaking app that outlines, organizes and integrates better with iCal, Mail and iSync. Stickies is a laugh, even with services.
2. A full-featured (but not bloated) alternative to MS Word. I think Apple should definitely keep an eye to Mellel, who does things the elegant Apple way, achieving a lot with simple means.
3. A scriptable spreadsheet. I hate Excel, but hey, everyone use it once in a while for different purposes. Some people even love it. It can't be that difficult to implement something similar.
But what are the technical reasons for not reusing some of KOffice.
I don't think I can give a more technical answer than "because it sucks".
Dog-slow, incompatible and feature-starved. That's my 2nd try, hows that for technical?
Also, Apple would be more likely to want to extend Mac OS X's frameworks to support what their future Word Processor and Spread Sheet can do rather than just making a standalone application, as Apple and 3rd party apps would then inherit those capabilities. WOW!
I agree with the genius of supporting stuff through frameworks.
A stand-alone application is more of what I wish for, especially in the case of the Word processor, as the implementation in the not yet released Panther (by the look of the leaked screenshots) seems rather inadequate. Thus, it seems we will have to wait for quite some time for an MSoffice alternative...
I know a lot of people here have a downer on Appleworks and it could certainly do with a bit of modernisation but an awful lot of people, including myself, use it voluntarily. I have Office but only ever use Powerpoint ( I'm still on my Keynote learning curve). Most of my WP work is simple text, I can swap effortlessly from AW to Word and back and it doesn't try to best guess me every time I turn round.
In short, it does everything I ask of it. Not saying it suits everyone but don't assume everyone is a super user when it comes to WP. Most of the teachers in my school switch on, type text, print out - and AW is fine for that.
Apple have the following purposes behind making apps themselves, in the following order:
1. Apple is a hardware company, therefore their reason to make software is to persuade potential buyers & switchers to buy macs. Another simple texteditor with rudimentary Word support is not a selling point. An MSOffice compatible AND better wordprocessor would be. Obviously Appleworks is an old but somehow acceptable app, but not excactly "better", lacking technological hype value and OS X integration.
2. If Microsoft threathens to withdraw from the mac market, Apple will need an alternative... AW is not that alternative.
3. Lastly, Apple can make a profit from the software itself - if there are market possibilities for that (Final Cut, DVD studio, Webobjects, etc..). If not, make them free iApps. Apple can only sell appleworks because its cheaper (like, free if you buy an eMac) than MSOffice.
Hmmm, is this a speculation amalgam or just THE rumor. From another thread, started by 'Ellens toy boy':
Quote:
I'm not really a rumor monger, but this one was too amazing to keep to myself.
First of all, I'm a software coder for a small company doing apps for University Libraries and other academic customers.
We use a mix of Linux and OS X and most people I deal with eventually find out I do my coding on OS X.
One of them let some news slip that she sort of regretted later but I think its amazing and shouldn't be kept secret.
Apple is working FULL-STEAM on an office suite. I know this is old news to most of you. But here's the catch: the apps are all being tested on Both Windows and OS X!
The design of the suite takes a lot from Adobe and Quark, rather than MS. The main basis of the suite is an ever growing cross-platform framework of utitilies, that any app in the suite can use. Plug-ins of all types can be written to extend the core engine, ala Adobe InDesign, or Quark Xtensions. Even third party apps can use them. Think web-core applied to business app functionality. Some of it was built on the old NeXT libraries but most had to be rewritten.
Even though this is top secret, enough developers are in the know that Open Office for Quartz is all but dead. The general idea I got from this is that this project is at full-tilt and Apple is serious about going head to head against Microsoft's main cash cow.
I'll try to get more news but I have a feeling my source has clammed up for now. The project is being shown to a very select FEW academic higher-ups though.
Token is right, Mellel looks good and has lots of potential to do things.
I thought it of interest that Apple's Developer page links to Keynote information for Developers. How to use the Keynote file format for building presentations from databases and such. Looks interesting, haven't had a chance to read it yet.
This somewhat lends to the extensible architecture theory though these only deal with the file format.
If you look at the URL http://developer.apple.com/appleappl...note-apxl.html you notice "./appleapplications/" and if you dig further that there are no other pages in this directory. This might have to do with Final Cut, or DVD Studio, or easily Shake, or it could have to do with other things. But iMovie plug-in development is not here so, Why is only Keynote here? Perhaps I'm reading too much, but this is a rumor site and why create a new directory for something when it will fit just fine in an old one.
I'm not really a rumor monger, but this one was too amazing to keep to myself.
First of all, I'm a software coder for a small company doing apps for University Libraries and other academic customers...
Exactly how do you let all that info SLIP?
I think that most of that post is conjecture based on someone who initially said an Office suite is in the works and others who noted the frameworks for reading MS docs are accessible to TextEdit.
And Apple projects aren't shown outside the campus these days to anyone. Not until they're ready, and the suite is not.
N.B. apologies for the multiple thread posts, but i think i need to start evangelizing this company again, especially when it comes to microsoft alternatives...
the only drawback is that they didn't have a powerpoint contender, but now that keynote is out, i think that the combination of these three apps (keynote, write and calc) would make a pretty powerful team on anyone's desktop, without breaking the bank. small by comparison to most bloatware, and it was os x native before office was (though no one seemed to notice).
p.s. it still annoys me to no end that when macworld did a comparative review of office alternatives, they ignored these apps, but reviewed TEXTEDIT?!?!?! WTF?!?!
I'm familiar with Mariner, though I have yet to try their products.
I think the reason Write and Calc haven't really caught on is that they don't really seem to bring anything new to the party. They read .doc, but I'm not sure they write to it. They're Carbon ports of the 9.X versions, so Nisus will probably overtake them once they've cleaned up the Writer interface inherited from Okito.
I think Apple's Keynote success shows that you have to bring improvements to the game if you want to play. Keynote is a step up from Powerpoint (or at least that's the image it projects.)
On another front, the Filemaker Conference Keynote is going on right NOW. It's entitled "The New Horizons of Filemaker", which seems straight-forward enough.
I think both Mariner Write, Nisus Express and MS Word gets beaten by Mellel´s superb ability to handle large documents with lots of styling, footnotes and text smoothing.
The Filemaker Keynote ended hours ago and NONE of the major Mac news outlets have any word on what was said. Not one person has posted on AI or any other forums I could find.
What did they do, make the entire conference sign an NDA?
I was actually pretty excited about today's speech, as I have a few FM projects to build in the next few weeks and it'd be nice to know what direction the app is headed in.
I think Apple is waiting for the right time to spring something like an iOffice. Of course, they probably have something in development, why wouldn't they? Deep down everyone hates MS Office b/c of the fact that MS products always have to be upgraded in two years or less which means spending mo money mo money mo money!! Not to mention the fact that MS products from a quality stand point stink.
How many knowledgebase articles are out there for all the problems with office?
How many people are still using Office 2000 simply b/c they don't want to shell out the extra cash money to upgrade?
If apple does come out with an iOffice they should let current Appleworks users upgrade for free.
And besides, as long as whatever does come out is compatible and works and has the same quality apple puts in its products people will buy it...
Of course, the PC people will bash it to death regardless so wh ocares really?
I checked a few filemaker sites and apparently something was announced but nobody's talking.
Well, nothing was announced (since it's kind of silly to have a secret product announcement!), but technologies were previewed which are due out "within a year."
If nothing leaks out for the months this technology could take to appear, Steve will probably staple himself to the FM executives until they tell him how they managed to keep the lid on so tight. It's a fair guess that the features that've already been leaked for a good while now are still in the pipeline - they were sensible enhancements for a toy database getting groomed for scalability.
I've read every post in all the current board topics about the mysterious iOffice (of whatever it's going to be called), and read with some surprise that virtually everyone considered the word processing aspect of the suite to need only a handful of features (those found, astonishingly enough, in Appleworks 6) and can be summed up as:
1. Ability to open and save .doc format (by default)
2. simple text and graphic manipulation
3. Search and Replace
I'm a writer both by vocation and avocation, and therefore nearly destitute, so buying Office X is not even a consideration for me at the present time. I can't justify the expense.
I spent virtually all of my workday editing 100 page Word docs, preparing complex project management tables, and process reports.
In all these cases Office offers the two features I use most of all that are not supported in Appleworks, or as far as I can tell, in any other alternative word processing product. What I need, and what I will beg, borrow, and steal enough cash to buy is an Office alternative that offers:
The track changes editing feature
Intuitive table manipulation
A useful on-the-fly spell/type-o checker
The Header-type/Table of Contents tool
Word processing is much more than simply hammering out a letter/memo and printing. Any professional writer needs these four features and uses them constantly.
I can't understand why Mail has a workable real-time spell/type-o checker and Appleworks 6 does not. I've used Nisus and it simply didn't offer the stability or functionality I needed to replace, or pair with Word. OpenOffice X is vaporware, and ThinkFree Office X is devoid of a useful features list and online review so I have no idea what features it has other than "Writes to and opens .doc format".
If Apple wants to compete in the business marketplace, and get their foot firmly planted in the door, they need to offer a better productivity suite that does the complex tasks I rely on MS Office for, otherwise their products will forever remain the kings of the 3% market share.
I want to use Mac products for my professional career, and to do that I have to convince my bosses that Apple really offers a less expensive toolset that does not hamper productivity. Until one is available we are married to the MS Platform.
As for critique of Appleworks, short of a useful professional feature set, the only complaint I have is with the horrific UI. Just using Appleworks for anything more than simple typing is an exercise in stupidity. The toolbars appear to have been organized by a schizophrenic.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Add a buck of your own and you can get a small coffee at 7-11.
Comments
...or maybe this weekend....
Originally posted by hmurchison
The parallels here with the rumors of Apple using Mozilla for a browser. OO is bloated and needs work. Apple can probably take the core of AW and build on top of that into a new app filled with Cocoa goodness.
Which is different, as there was a better open source solution in KHTML. Apple took KHTML, cleaned it up a bit, built a QT translation library and wrote an interface for it. And we all know how easy it is to write interfaces in Mac OS X.
What is their besides OpenOffice though (which runs fantastically on my PC)? KOffice? AbiWord? Come on. emacs on eMacs?
Writing an office suite from scratch is a huge job, which is why we are seeing it done peice-meal, with Keynote first.
Barto
Writing an office suite from scratch is a huge job, which is why we are seeing it done peice-meal, with Keynote first.
.
That sound reasonable. Not being a programmer myself, I can't tell which open source alternative is better to start with, but is seems obvious that both AppleWorks, Openoffice are to complex to use as a foundation for a new office suite, considering they already have the presentation application, the browser, calendar and the email apps. But what are the technical reasons for not reusing some of KOffice.
What is lacking (in my opinion):
1. We still miss a built-in notetaking app that outlines, organizes and integrates better with iCal, Mail and iSync. Stickies is a laugh, even with services.
2. A full-featured (but not bloated) alternative to MS Word. I think Apple should definitely keep an eye to Mellel, who does things the elegant Apple way, achieving a lot with simple means.
3. A scriptable spreadsheet. I hate Excel, but hey, everyone use it once in a while for different purposes. Some people even love it. It can't be that difficult to implement something similar.
- Token.
Originally posted by Token
But what are the technical reasons for not reusing some of KOffice.
I don't think I can give a more technical answer than "because it sucks".
Dog-slow, incompatible and feature-starved. That's my 2nd try, hows that for technical?
Also, Apple would be more likely to want to extend Mac OS X's frameworks to support what their future Word Processor and Spread Sheet can do rather than just making a standalone application, as Apple and 3rd party apps would then inherit those capabilities. WOW!
Barto
I agree with the genius of supporting stuff through frameworks.
A stand-alone application is more of what I wish for, especially in the case of the Word processor, as the implementation in the not yet released Panther (by the look of the leaked screenshots) seems rather inadequate. Thus, it seems we will have to wait for quite some time for an MSoffice alternative...
I know a lot of people here have a downer on Appleworks and it could certainly do with a bit of modernisation but an awful lot of people, including myself, use it voluntarily. I have Office but only ever use Powerpoint ( I'm still on my Keynote learning curve). Most of my WP work is simple text, I can swap effortlessly from AW to Word and back and it doesn't try to best guess me every time I turn round.
In short, it does everything I ask of it. Not saying it suits everyone but don't assume everyone is a super user when it comes to WP. Most of the teachers in my school switch on, type text, print out - and AW is fine for that.
1. Apple is a hardware company, therefore their reason to make software is to persuade potential buyers & switchers to buy macs. Another simple texteditor with rudimentary Word support is not a selling point. An MSOffice compatible AND better wordprocessor would be. Obviously Appleworks is an old but somehow acceptable app, but not excactly "better", lacking technological hype value and OS X integration.
2. If Microsoft threathens to withdraw from the mac market, Apple will need an alternative... AW is not that alternative.
3. Lastly, Apple can make a profit from the software itself - if there are market possibilities for that (Final Cut, DVD studio, Webobjects, etc..). If not, make them free iApps. Apple can only sell appleworks because its cheaper (like, free if you buy an eMac) than MSOffice.
I'm not really a rumor monger, but this one was too amazing to keep to myself.
First of all, I'm a software coder for a small company doing apps for University Libraries and other academic customers.
We use a mix of Linux and OS X and most people I deal with eventually find out I do my coding on OS X.
One of them let some news slip that she sort of regretted later but I think its amazing and shouldn't be kept secret.
Apple is working FULL-STEAM on an office suite. I know this is old news to most of you. But here's the catch: the apps are all being tested on Both Windows and OS X!
The design of the suite takes a lot from Adobe and Quark, rather than MS. The main basis of the suite is an ever growing cross-platform framework of utitilies, that any app in the suite can use. Plug-ins of all types can be written to extend the core engine, ala Adobe InDesign, or Quark Xtensions. Even third party apps can use them. Think web-core applied to business app functionality. Some of it was built on the old NeXT libraries but most had to be rewritten.
Even though this is top secret, enough developers are in the know that Open Office for Quartz is all but dead. The general idea I got from this is that this project is at full-tilt and Apple is serious about going head to head against Microsoft's main cash cow.
I'll try to get more news but I have a feeling my source has clammed up for now. The project is being shown to a very select FEW academic higher-ups though.
I, for one, am psyched.
I thought it of interest that Apple's Developer page links to Keynote information for Developers. How to use the Keynote file format for building presentations from databases and such. Looks interesting, haven't had a chance to read it yet.
This somewhat lends to the extensible architecture theory though these only deal with the file format.
If you look at the URL http://developer.apple.com/appleappl...note-apxl.html you notice "./appleapplications/" and if you dig further that there are no other pages in this directory. This might have to do with Final Cut, or DVD Studio, or easily Shake, or it could have to do with other things. But iMovie plug-in development is not here so, Why is only Keynote here? Perhaps I'm reading too much, but this is a rumor site and why create a new directory for something when it will fit just fine in an old one.
Something to think about.
quote:
I'm not really a rumor monger, but this one was too amazing to keep to myself.
First of all, I'm a software coder for a small company doing apps for University Libraries and other academic customers...
Exactly how do you let all that info SLIP?
I think that most of that post is conjecture based on someone who initially said an Office suite is in the works and others who noted the frameworks for reading MS docs are accessible to TextEdit.
And Apple projects aren't shown outside the campus these days to anyone. Not until they're ready, and the suite is not.
Mariner Software - makers of Mariner Write and Calc
the only drawback is that they didn't have a powerpoint contender, but now that keynote is out, i think that the combination of these three apps (keynote, write and calc) would make a pretty powerful team on anyone's desktop, without breaking the bank. small by comparison to most bloatware, and it was os x native before office was (though no one seemed to notice).
p.s. it still annoys me to no end that when macworld did a comparative review of office alternatives, they ignored these apps, but reviewed TEXTEDIT?!?!?! WTF?!?!
I think the reason Write and Calc haven't really caught on is that they don't really seem to bring anything new to the party. They read .doc, but I'm not sure they write to it. They're Carbon ports of the 9.X versions, so Nisus will probably overtake them once they've cleaned up the Writer interface inherited from Okito.
I think Apple's Keynote success shows that you have to bring improvements to the game if you want to play. Keynote is a step up from Powerpoint (or at least that's the image it projects.)
On another front, the Filemaker Conference Keynote is going on right NOW. It's entitled "The New Horizons of Filemaker", which seems straight-forward enough.
Anybody have any news?
The Filemaker Keynote ended hours ago and NONE of the major Mac news outlets have any word on what was said. Not one person has posted on AI or any other forums I could find.
What did they do, make the entire conference sign an NDA?
I was actually pretty excited about today's speech, as I have a few FM projects to build in the next few weeks and it'd be nice to know what direction the app is headed in.
Originally posted by Frank777
What did they do, make the entire conference sign an NDA?
That usually isn't 100% effective at staving off leaks.
Maybe they had Guido the Killer Pimp go around and have people sign the NDAs and honor them, or they'll be fed to the fish.
I say, it's getting stranger and stranger to be a modern tech user.
How many knowledgebase articles are out there for all the problems with office?
How many people are still using Office 2000 simply b/c they don't want to shell out the extra cash money to upgrade?
If apple does come out with an iOffice they should let current Appleworks users upgrade for free.
And besides, as long as whatever does come out is compatible and works and has the same quality apple puts in its products people will buy it...
Of course, the PC people will bash it to death regardless so wh ocares really?
If apple does come out with an iOffice they should let current Appleworks users upgrade for free.
Not likely. Apple is not a charity and they know it.
Originally posted by Frank777
I checked a few filemaker sites and apparently something was announced but nobody's talking.
Well, nothing was announced (since it's kind of silly to have a secret product announcement!), but technologies were previewed which are due out "within a year."
If nothing leaks out for the months this technology could take to appear, Steve will probably staple himself to the FM executives until they tell him how they managed to keep the lid on so tight. It's a fair guess that the features that've already been leaked for a good while now are still in the pipeline - they were sensible enhancements for a toy database getting groomed for scalability.
1. Ability to open and save .doc format (by default)
2. simple text and graphic manipulation
3. Search and Replace
I'm a writer both by vocation and avocation, and therefore nearly destitute, so buying Office X is not even a consideration for me at the present time. I can't justify the expense.
I spent virtually all of my workday editing 100 page Word docs, preparing complex project management tables, and process reports.
In all these cases Office offers the two features I use most of all that are not supported in Appleworks, or as far as I can tell, in any other alternative word processing product. What I need, and what I will beg, borrow, and steal enough cash to buy is an Office alternative that offers:
The track changes editing feature
Intuitive table manipulation
A useful on-the-fly spell/type-o checker
The Header-type/Table of Contents tool
Word processing is much more than simply hammering out a letter/memo and printing. Any professional writer needs these four features and uses them constantly.
I can't understand why Mail has a workable real-time spell/type-o checker and Appleworks 6 does not. I've used Nisus and it simply didn't offer the stability or functionality I needed to replace, or pair with Word. OpenOffice X is vaporware, and ThinkFree Office X is devoid of a useful features list and online review so I have no idea what features it has other than "Writes to and opens .doc format".
If Apple wants to compete in the business marketplace, and get their foot firmly planted in the door, they need to offer a better productivity suite that does the complex tasks I rely on MS Office for, otherwise their products will forever remain the kings of the 3% market share.
I want to use Mac products for my professional career, and to do that I have to convince my bosses that Apple really offers a less expensive toolset that does not hamper productivity. Until one is available we are married to the MS Platform.
As for critique of Appleworks, short of a useful professional feature set, the only complaint I have is with the horrific UI. Just using Appleworks for anything more than simple typing is an exercise in stupidity. The toolbars appear to have been organized by a schizophrenic.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Add a buck of your own and you can get a small coffee at 7-11.