Nothing is free. You're paying for them with a new Mac too.
I imagine that when iWork is capable of doing enough of what AppleWorks does then it too will be included with new Macs and AppleWorks will be dropped. It's not there yet.
They'd have to add a spreadsheet, a drawing program and a database. If they do all that next week I'll be impressed and the credit card will be straight out for it although I suspect it'll be out anyway just for a Pages update.
I've no real interest in the Intel Macs at all just yet (6 months to a year maybe I will) but software improvements I want now.
I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.
I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!
I do like iTunes 6 but would prefer a platinum (mail) style design - without those horrible buttons, obviously.
I think Aperture has got the compromise right - not too dark and legible plus aesthetically pleasing.
It's not really the colour I object to although yet another different blue and grey theme you can't change that is different to the other blue and grey themes is annoying. It's the thin divider lines that don't change the mouse pointer when you hover, the lack of borders on dragable areas, ok/cancel buttons in dialogs and the horrible prefs with options hidden inside other options, the fake spotlight search which doesn't let you save a search, the radius on corners and buttons different to everything else on the Mac, the way drag and drop works in some parts of iTunes but not others, the busy pointer, the way you can't resize some panes....
I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.
I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!
I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.
I can't wait.... iWeb. If it's good I may finally be able to stop using a windows based comp to make my sad website. It looks like it was made in 1995.
I can't wait.... iWeb. If it's good I may finally be able to stop using a windows based comp to make my sad website. It looks like it was made in 1995.
iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!
iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!
iLife06 is not available till next week, if indeed it does do what you're after anyway.
Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.
Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing
Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)
Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.
I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0
How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?
Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing
Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)
Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.
I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0
How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?
It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.
Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.
High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.
I, for one, would love to move my blog to my .Mac account and give people an RSS feed for it. I could then integrate it into my .Mac site. I'm looking forward to iWeb and any improvements to .Mac.
I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.
I think iWeb will be a client version of 'Homepage' that is available to .mac accounts. It will have the same templates, but we will be able to mix and match them on the same page and also arrange them as we see fit instead of being stuck in column format. iWeb will most likely be geared to work with .mac and some features might require a .mac account, but it will also work with any (most) web hosts.
It might seem like iWeb should be included in iWork because it is a productivity suite, but if iWeb is designed for people to build personal web sites then it makes sense to be included in iLife where people have personal/digital content
iWork will continue to lag in success until they figure out that it needs to go on windows also. The vast majority of people on macs are those in creative, education and scientific disciplines, only a small percentage regularly create or present documents that don't need to work with people on windows--especially in traditional business.
From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....
The original comment was that GarageBand deserves to have a different look based on the fact that it's the only iLife application that focuses on content production. I would strongly argue that. iMovie is in many ways for video what GarageBand is for music.
Absolutely. I didn't intend to argue about that subject.
My point of view was and is: GB is within the iLife suite
a, say, singularity. GB is a Music content creation tool
for Beginners.
Musicians - especially in the hobbiest field -
really like "different" GUIs. Apple serves this likeing.
iWork will continue to lag in success until they figure out that it needs to go on windows also. The vast majority of people on macs are those in creative, education and scientific disciplines, only a small percentage regularly create or present documents that don't need to work with people on windows--especially in traditional business.
From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....
Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...
It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.
Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.
High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.
I just don't see this. There's certainly some use of Filemaker in some sectors, particularly accounting, but it's dwarfed by Access (and JET/VB) and SQL Server in business and always has been in the Windows world. I've developed both Access and SQL Server (and Oracle) based software for businesses as big as American Express and the Bank of England and as small as a truck leasing company and never, ever were we asked to do a Filemaker based solution on Windows.
'Popular for web sites'. You're kidding! Maybe small catalogue based sites edited offline but again, MySQL, Postgres and SQL Server rule here.
Nobody would develop a serious DB application without SQL today.
Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...
Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.
iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.
Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.
iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.
IME, if you insist on cross-platform editable document formats that Windows users are happy with it always comes back to using Word. I've tried with RTF but Word's RTF support is terrible.
I'm reminded that Apple bought up a company a few years back who's speciality was writing conversion software for Microsoft Office like DataViz do but I can't remember the name of it. We've not seen the outcome of that purchase yet AFAIK.
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Nothing is free. You're paying for them with a new Mac too.
I imagine that when iWork is capable of doing enough of what AppleWorks does then it too will be included with new Macs and AppleWorks will be dropped. It's not there yet.
They'd have to add a spreadsheet, a drawing program and a database. If they do all that next week I'll be impressed and the credit card will be straight out for it although I suspect it'll be out anyway just for a Pages update.
I've no real interest in the Intel Macs at all just yet (6 months to a year maybe I will) but software improvements I want now.
I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.
I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I do like iTunes 6 but would prefer a platinum (mail) style design - without those horrible buttons, obviously.
I think Aperture has got the compromise right - not too dark and legible plus aesthetically pleasing.
It's not really the colour I object to although yet another different blue and grey theme you can't change that is different to the other blue and grey themes is annoying. It's the thin divider lines that don't change the mouse pointer when you hover, the lack of borders on dragable areas, ok/cancel buttons in dialogs and the horrible prefs with options hidden inside other options, the fake spotlight search which doesn't let you save a search, the radius on corners and buttons different to everything else on the Mac, the way drag and drop works in some parts of iTunes but not others, the busy pointer, the way you can't resize some panes....
You get the idea. ;-)
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I'll pay if they bring out a spreadsheet and/or database. I get a nice educational discount.
I'm just thinking - surely an iWeb application would be better suited as part of iWork and iLife. It would be useful to both. Consumers want to be able to create a website - iWork. Consumers want digital content on their website - iLife. I suppose iLife is bought by more people so makes sense to be part of it. I just doubt I'll be upgrading iLife this year - it will need a substantial upgrade to iPhoto - it's the only app I use!
I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.
Originally posted by Sabon
I'll tell you what. Why don't you spend millions and come out with a app suite so all of us can tell YOU to release it for free.
If you add: then either open source or abandon it, you'd pretty much have Sun's software business model in a nutshell.
Originally posted by Ichiban_jay
I can't wait.... iWeb. If it's good I may finally be able to stop using a windows based comp to make my sad website. It looks like it was made in 1995.
iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
iWeb, if it is what the name suggests it is, couldn't come at a better time for me. I need desperately to get a business web site up and running by next week! I'm placing my order now!
iLife06 is not available till next week, if indeed it does do what you're after anyway.
Why not use ...
RealMac's RapidWeaver - http://www.realmacsoftware.com/
NVU - http://www.nvu.com/
or any other of the editors currently availble.
or learn to code - http://www.htmldog.com
or ask a pro
Originally posted by melgross
Don't forget that Apple also owns Filemaker, one of the most successful databases around.
Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing
Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)
Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.
I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0
How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?
Originally posted by a_greer
Successfull on a persentage of Mac desktops maybe, but here is what I see and hear in the world of databasing
Small office/homeoffice - Access rules the day, as sad as that is
Back end - SQL...much like Baskin Robins, there are dozens of flavors, pick any
High end - Peoplesoft/orical/SAP or a one-off custom design (usually done by one of the big three.)
Does Filemaker have any windows userbase? I have never acctually seen filemaker on a non-mac box, and the only Macs I have seen it on are inthe apple store.
I am not talking down the quality because I have never used it but I dont know if being the best means anything now-a-days with the MS machine fighting against you and OOo Base being decent competition to Access with a big fat price of $0
How do you define success? user base not a factor for you?
It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.
Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.
High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I'm hoping iWeb isn't tied to .mac. If I can integrate it in to my hosting company (I own a hosting company) like Frontpage does or preferably more so, then it might be quite useful to a number of my customers, and me obviously.
Where are you based? If you don't mind me asking?
It might seem like iWeb should be included in iWork because it is a productivity suite, but if iWeb is designed for people to build personal web sites then it makes sense to be included in iLife where people have personal/digital content
From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....
But realistically, I don't see it as necessary. Microsoft would go bonkers if Apple only adopted OpenDocument as the iWork file format.
That's really all we need to make things interesting.
Originally posted by Chucker
...
The original comment was that GarageBand deserves to have a different look based on the fact that it's the only iLife application that focuses on content production. I would strongly argue that. iMovie is in many ways for video what GarageBand is for music.
Absolutely. I didn't intend to argue about that subject.
My point of view was and is: GB is within the iLife suite
a, say, singularity. GB is a Music content creation tool
for Beginners.
Musicians - especially in the hobbiest field -
really like "different" GUIs. Apple serves this likeing.
My 2 cents
Originally posted by futuretheory9
iWork will continue to lag in success until they figure out that it needs to go on windows also. The vast majority of people on macs are those in creative, education and scientific disciplines, only a small percentage regularly create or present documents that don't need to work with people on windows--especially in traditional business.
From my point of view (creative) I could sell at least 20 iWork suites right now to my clients if they knew that they could open and use the beautiful documents that I create for them (and all it cost them was $75). Heck, they might just start using it themselves and take an interest in Apple...we've seen that halo effect before....
Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...
"How did you do that in Word?"
Arrrgh!
Originally posted by melgross
It has a very large PC userbase. I know few SMB or home users who use Access. It's mostly corporations who have custom software running from it.
Yes, there a large base of small and medium companies who use it for the back end. It's also popular for web sites.
High end. Well, you've got me there. They don't have a several thousand buck/seat configuration. But then, MS's high end software isn't doing that well either.
I just don't see this. There's certainly some use of Filemaker in some sectors, particularly accounting, but it's dwarfed by Access (and JET/VB) and SQL Server in business and always has been in the Windows world. I've developed both Access and SQL Server (and Oracle) based software for businesses as big as American Express and the Bank of England and as small as a truck leasing company and never, ever were we asked to do a Filemaker based solution on Windows.
'Popular for web sites'. You're kidding! Maybe small catalogue based sites edited offline but again, MySQL, Postgres and SQL Server rule here.
Nobody would develop a serious DB application without SQL today.
Originally posted by melgross
Where are you based? If you don't mind me asking?
I'm in the UK (near Manchester). Datacenter is in Atlanta.
Bandwidth in the UK is about 10 times more expensive than the USA which is why I use US based servers.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Why don't you send them PDFs? That's what I do, and my clients ask me...
Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.
iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.
Originally posted by futuretheory9
Sure, but it doesn't always work like that. Business proposals, presentations, etc. that need to be shared and worked on as a team have to live in a editable format. If it was something that was going into final form and never had to touched by anyone other than me, I would just do it in a pro app like indesign.
iWork isn't about heavy creative work as much as it is about easily producing "work-oriented" documents that happen to look great. Unfortunately, "work-oriented" also means collaboration (usually with people that have PCs), Apple allowed for this with a cross-platform solution...so guess what? Windows/Office solutions win.
IME, if you insist on cross-platform editable document formats that Windows users are happy with it always comes back to using Word. I've tried with RTF but Word's RTF support is terrible.
I'm reminded that Apple bought up a company a few years back who's speciality was writing conversion software for Microsoft Office like DataViz do but I can't remember the name of it. We've not seen the outcome of that purchase yet AFAIK.