If you all recall, the first rumors of what became pages surfaced in late 2003, and folks were surprised when it didn't materialize at MWSF 2004. It wasn't until a year later that Pages 1.0 was unveiled, which was two years after Keynote 1.0 was released. It seems that every two years is Apple's schedule for releasing new parts of iWork. Now, I'd like to see that accelerated (I no longer use any MS software but Excel, thanks to Pages, but I'll always keep a copy of the latest version of Office on my Mac just in case), but given the transition situation, I think it's understandable that Numbers is taking the same amount of time to produce as Pages did.
Pages 2.0 is really splendid, by the way. I was fond of the first version, but I'm thrilled with the new one.
Pages is so very far behind anything that could be considered for full time use, at least in my experience of using it. For it to be number two says alot about what Office has done to the competition. I have used OpenOffice, in my limited amount of time with it, it is a real competitor to Office, at least on the Windows side. I have OO 2.0 for OS X running in X11 and it is okay, but there is a long way to go.
Well, this only takes into account US Retail Sales and since OpenOffice is not sold, but distributed freely, it is not even included into the equation.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
Well, this only takes into account US Retail Sales and since OpenOffice is not sold, but distributed freely, it is not even included into the equation.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
Well limited, yes. Proves? Not sure that was the goal. Does seem to indicate that things weren't quite as dire as those not in the know had previously thought. It is early. It probably gives Apple some reason to continue development at the very least.
The goal was to establish who the leader and the competitors are, and to find out who's #1, who's #2 and prove it with facts (research). When you make a claim ('Office is the leader') you need to also prove it.
The claim was that iWork is #2, and Corel is wrong in saying they're #2. Seeing as the analysis is limited at best, and flawed at worst, it doesn't really prove anything. iWork may very well be #2, and Corel may very well suck so bad that it can't beat a half-baked office suite, but that is not proven in this article as the supporting evidence is weak and entirely inadequate.
The goal was to establish who the leader and the competitors are, and to find out who's #1, who's #2 and prove it with facts (research). When you make a claim ('Office is the leader') you need to also prove it.
The claim was that iWork is #2, and Corel is wrong in saying they're #2. Seeing as the analysis is limited at best, and flawed at worst, it doesn't really prove anything. iWork may very well be #2, and Corel may very well suck so bad that it can't beat a half-baked office suite, but that is not proven in this article as the supporting evidence is weak and entirely inadequate.
And the article qualifies its scope in the second friggin' sentence (in bold no less):
Quote:
Corel bills its WordPerfect Office software as "the world's leading alternative to Microsoft Office." But when it comes to U.S. retail sales, Corel lost the No. 2 spot in 2005 to a somewhat unlikely competitor: Apple Computer's iWork.
[B]Pages is so very far behind anything that could be considered for full time use, at least in my experience of using it.
I've written term papers, screenplay outlines and a good chunk of a novel in Pages. Now that it has comments (which successfully round trip between .pages and .doc file translations), the only real major-mojo feature I'm missing is versions -- and that feature can sometimes bite you in the ass.
What is pages missing in terms of needed word processor functionality?
Well, this only takes into account US Retail Sales and since OpenOffice is not sold, but distributed freely, it is not even included into the equation.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
The reality of life and business is most decisions get made without perfect information. You take the best you can find and work with it. Virtually never in life do you find information that conclusively proves everything. It takes too long and is generally just too hard to find.
This is why analysts are highly sought after. They will take information from a variety of sources that are far from perfect and put together what amounts to a reasonable view of the future. Doing that job well is very tough but engineers and the business world do it extensively.
[BWhat is pages missing in terms of needed word processor functionality? [/B]
For me as someone who writes research papers, Pages needs to provide a means for reference apps like Sente or EndNote to interface with it. According to the developers of Sente, Apple doesn't provide the tools to accomplish this. I wish they would, because I could easily do without Word and would love to take more advantage of the page-layout functiosn of Pages.
From what I see, I think Pages can easily cover what most people need in a word processor. Sure it can get better, but it is 90% there and much better in some areas compared to Word.
Comments
Pages 2.0 is really splendid, by the way. I was fond of the first version, but I'm thrilled with the new one.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, this only takes into account US Retail Sales and since OpenOffice is not sold, but distributed freely, it is not even included into the equation.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
Well limited, yes. Proves? Not sure that was the goal. Does seem to indicate that things weren't quite as dire as those not in the know had previously thought. It is early. It probably gives Apple some reason to continue development at the very least.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Proves? Not sure that was the goal.
The goal was to establish who the leader and the competitors are, and to find out who's #1, who's #2 and prove it with facts (research). When you make a claim ('Office is the leader') you need to also prove it.
The claim was that iWork is #2, and Corel is wrong in saying they're #2. Seeing as the analysis is limited at best, and flawed at worst, it doesn't really prove anything. iWork may very well be #2, and Corel may very well suck so bad that it can't beat a half-baked office suite, but that is not proven in this article as the supporting evidence is weak and entirely inadequate.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
The goal was to establish who the leader and the competitors are, and to find out who's #1, who's #2 and prove it with facts (research). When you make a claim ('Office is the leader') you need to also prove it.
The claim was that iWork is #2, and Corel is wrong in saying they're #2. Seeing as the analysis is limited at best, and flawed at worst, it doesn't really prove anything. iWork may very well be #2, and Corel may very well suck so bad that it can't beat a half-baked office suite, but that is not proven in this article as the supporting evidence is weak and entirely inadequate.
And the article qualifies its scope in the second friggin' sentence (in bold no less):
Corel bills its WordPerfect Office software as "the world's leading alternative to Microsoft Office." But when it comes to U.S. retail sales, Corel lost the No. 2 spot in 2005 to a somewhat unlikely competitor: Apple Computer's iWork.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And the article qualifies its scope in the second friggin' sentence (in bold no less):
Which is exactly what makes it a limited, weak and inadequate piece of 'analysis' for what it claims to do.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Which is exactly what makes it a limited, weak and inadequate piece of 'analysis' for what it claims to do.
It is only making claims about the U.S. anyway. And only on a single facet (market share) of sold products. Don't get your undies in a bunch over it.
Originally posted by DanMacMan
[B]Pages is so very far behind anything that could be considered for full time use, at least in my experience of using it.
I've written term papers, screenplay outlines and a good chunk of a novel in Pages. Now that it has comments (which successfully round trip between .pages and .doc file translations), the only real major-mojo feature I'm missing is versions -- and that feature can sometimes bite you in the ass.
What is pages missing in terms of needed word processor functionality?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Well, this only takes into account US Retail Sales and since OpenOffice is not sold, but distributed freely, it is not even included into the equation.
That's why this is a very limited 'analysis' that actually proves nothing.
The reality of life and business is most decisions get made without perfect information. You take the best you can find and work with it. Virtually never in life do you find information that conclusively proves everything. It takes too long and is generally just too hard to find.
This is why analysts are highly sought after. They will take information from a variety of sources that are far from perfect and put together what amounts to a reasonable view of the future. Doing that job well is very tough but engineers and the business world do it extensively.
Originally posted by Fireball1244
[BWhat is pages missing in terms of needed word processor functionality? [/B]
For me as someone who writes research papers, Pages needs to provide a means for reference apps like Sente or EndNote to interface with it. According to the developers of Sente, Apple doesn't provide the tools to accomplish this. I wish they would, because I could easily do without Word and would love to take more advantage of the page-layout functiosn of Pages.
From what I see, I think Pages can easily cover what most people need in a word processor. Sure it can get better, but it is 90% there and much better in some areas compared to Word.