AppleOffice Speculation
I posted this originally in a thread in Future Hardware. But nobody really responded. (Instead people started talking about gyroscopes...don't ask why...) I'd actually really like to hear people's thoughts on this, whether or not you think Apple can or should pull this off, etc.
Thank-frikkin-gawd!
Filemaker used to be the shiznit back when I sold Macs for a living (or, more accurately, an air-quote living). Lots of people loved Filemaker.
Ever since they spun it off, it's just been plain old shiznit.
I frankly haven't kept up with it in the past few years. But for those more in the know thatn me, how difficult/desirable would it be to have Filemaker be a combo speadsheet and db app, as part of MacOffice (TM)? Should it be a "combo" app, or should Apple create a new one from scratch?
So would it look like this?
AppleOffice Suite
- Document (Word processing)
- Mail (duh)
- Filemaker (DB...+ spreadsheet?)
- iSpread
(spreadsheet if necessary)
- Keynote (duh)
- iCal (duh)
- iChat ("no techies required" videoconferencing)
- Address Book (duh)
- Safari (duh)
- Quicktime Pro (just for the hell of it, and so that annoying upgrade message doesn't pester employees...or just remove the pop-up from the non-pro version)
Note that the only thing missing is the word processing and spreadsheet bits (they are the most important too).
Of course, it would have to be perfectly/seemlessly compatible with MS Office (particularly Document and the spreadsheet app; keynote already is). Have a preference where documents can be saved as MS Word docs by default. It would also have to come close to MS Office's functionality (though Word has a lot of crap that 99% of users don't use or even know about), and exceed its usability.
BTW, on the subject. If Apple really wants to kill MS... give AppleOffice (or whatever it ends up being called) away on all new computers. Sell it retail for $149. Upgrades for free... $49 if necessary ($19 education/bulk). Sell 10-user licenses for $499; unlimited licenses for $999 (isn't that like OS X Server?). Make it irresistable! (particularly in this economy).
On top of that, since WWDC is a developer conference, make it open-source (or at least parts). Contribute it to OpenOffice...or as an alternative...whatever. Duplicate the success with Safari. Also, Apple will want to avoid the security/backdoor problems with MSOffice, along with the "monopoly" accusation (that it's just replacing MS's monopoly). Opensourcing it will help with both problems. The point is to make AppleOffice a vehicle for gaining marketshare and shielding Apple from MS's wrath/BS, not to necessarily make it a cashcow in and of itself.
A gamble? Yes, certainly.
What does Apple have to lose? Not much. Maybe a few million bucks. (It can't lose much more marketshare. )
What does Apple have to gain? Marketshare. Customers. Money. Bragging-rights. Respect.
..Oh...um, since this is FutureHardware, um... make a version available with one of those neato, slim Apple FireWire cameras that connect to those neato new Apple monitors with the USB and FireWire ports.
\
Quote:
"...You hear they are moving File Maker back in-house?"
"...You hear they are moving File Maker back in-house?"
Thank-frikkin-gawd!
Filemaker used to be the shiznit back when I sold Macs for a living (or, more accurately, an air-quote living). Lots of people loved Filemaker.
Ever since they spun it off, it's just been plain old shiznit.
I frankly haven't kept up with it in the past few years. But for those more in the know thatn me, how difficult/desirable would it be to have Filemaker be a combo speadsheet and db app, as part of MacOffice (TM)? Should it be a "combo" app, or should Apple create a new one from scratch?
So would it look like this?
AppleOffice Suite
- Document (Word processing)
- Mail (duh)
- Filemaker (DB...+ spreadsheet?)
- iSpread
(spreadsheet if necessary)- Keynote (duh)
- iCal (duh)
- iChat ("no techies required" videoconferencing)
- Address Book (duh)
- Safari (duh)
- Quicktime Pro (just for the hell of it, and so that annoying upgrade message doesn't pester employees...or just remove the pop-up from the non-pro version)
Note that the only thing missing is the word processing and spreadsheet bits (they are the most important too).
Of course, it would have to be perfectly/seemlessly compatible with MS Office (particularly Document and the spreadsheet app; keynote already is). Have a preference where documents can be saved as MS Word docs by default. It would also have to come close to MS Office's functionality (though Word has a lot of crap that 99% of users don't use or even know about), and exceed its usability.
BTW, on the subject. If Apple really wants to kill MS... give AppleOffice (or whatever it ends up being called) away on all new computers. Sell it retail for $149. Upgrades for free... $49 if necessary ($19 education/bulk). Sell 10-user licenses for $499; unlimited licenses for $999 (isn't that like OS X Server?). Make it irresistable! (particularly in this economy).
On top of that, since WWDC is a developer conference, make it open-source (or at least parts). Contribute it to OpenOffice...or as an alternative...whatever. Duplicate the success with Safari. Also, Apple will want to avoid the security/backdoor problems with MSOffice, along with the "monopoly" accusation (that it's just replacing MS's monopoly). Opensourcing it will help with both problems. The point is to make AppleOffice a vehicle for gaining marketshare and shielding Apple from MS's wrath/BS, not to necessarily make it a cashcow in and of itself.
A gamble? Yes, certainly.
What does Apple have to lose? Not much. Maybe a few million bucks. (It can't lose much more marketshare.
)What does Apple have to gain? Marketshare. Customers. Money. Bragging-rights. Respect.
..Oh...um, since this is FutureHardware, um... make a version available with one of those neato, slim Apple FireWire cameras that connect to those neato new Apple monitors with the USB and FireWire ports.
\
Comments
If Apple can leverage Open Office into it's suite like it did using Open Source code for Safari it would be a blow to M$FT but they will remain a moving target for file format compatability.
The computing World needs a standard document format that is not tied to M$FT. Is that XML? I would think so. I'd rather see Apple go this route than chasing the moving target that is the .doc compatability.
As far as spreadsheets Mesa in Open Source might be a good starting point.
Aphelion ...
Originally posted by Aphelion
The computing World needs a standard document format that is not tied to M$FT. Is that XML? I would think so. I'd rather see Apple go this route than chasing the moving target that is the .doc compatability.
XML is good, XML is great, but XML is not a file format! One company could use
<i>xxx</i>
for italics and another company could use
<ital>xxx</ital>
. Both ways are compatible with XML, and incompatible with each other. Furthermore,
<f></f>
could mean "font" in one company's word processor and "footnote" in another. XML makes it very easy to parse data, but what you do with that data is up to you.
The important thing is to agree on a format. XML can help because it's so readable, but it's not the magic bullet that so many people seem to think it is.
Maybe Apple and the open source community could do for the.doc format what the DWG Alliance is trying to do for CAD documents and acreate a separate entity to lobby and pursue the format as a true standard.
As for brining filemaker back into the fold, it makes perfect sense to me. Apple could pull all their enterprise software into one place, get them to comingle and provide solutions and service. That would include not only Keynote (which is likely to mature quickly) and FileMaker, but also WebObjects (does EOF exist in here?), QT Pro (good idea, IMO, but maybe they could/should repackage it a bit, maybe even incorporate it functions into the other software like Keynote?), and of course Author/Document/Thesis whatever it's called.
They could basically have four software groups, but they hopefully would not be too insular: system software, consumer software, productivity (I'm avoiding using the word "business") software and creative software. System software folks could incorporate souped-up frameworks for Address Book and Mail. Keynote lands somewhere between productivity and creative, let its people come from both groups. ...and so on.
Making "Apple Office" free and/or cheap would further discourage Microsoft to abandon the platform. Mac IE is one thing (it wasn't generating any sort of revenue for Microsoft) but Mac Office is a cash cow. Microsoft is not going to axe it unless Apple does come up with "Apple Office".
If Apple attacks Microsoft with "Apple Office", and they leave the Mac platform, the Mac has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many potential switchers.
Keeping Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft developing on the Mac platform is VERY important.
I would consider an Apple productivity suite to be merely pre-emptive action against what is inevitable.
I should add that my attitude before Safari came out was that Apple dhoulsn't rock the boat. Well, they have, and we're seeing the fallout. so given current circumstances, they can't be wishy-washy. If they want to gain independence from the big software houses, they should do balls-to-the-walls work to make it that way.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Apple Office would be a bad, bad idea. Apple has alienated 3rd-party developers time and again with their software...case in point, Premiere, which hasn't even been updated for Jaguar, is on the chopping block because of Final Cut Pro.
Premiere was lagging badly before FCP. Adobe might have patched it for Jaguar if not for FCP, but that's about all.
The fact is that Apple steps in when and where other developers either aren't contributing at all, or aren't contributing enough. What was the Mac browser landscape like before Safari? What was the Mac video editing landscape like before FCP? What's the Mac office landscape like now? We have, um, AppleWorks, the poster child for Bad Carbon Ports(TM), and office:mac, which is dated, poorly designed, overpriced, not even perfectly document-compatible with its Windows counterpart, and unable to support basic OS X technologies to boot. Oh, and TextEdit. And a kinda-sorta version of Nisus. For something as bread-and-butter as a word processor, the options are pretty bleak right now - and the 800lb gorilla (MS) is waffling about whether there will be an update to office:mac after the next one. Apple can't wait for MS to decide that there won't be an Office 2004, because replacing a beast like Office isn't easy.
I don't think Apple wants to move into this space. It means a lot of engineers occupied for a long time when they could be working on improving Apple's core software. But when nobody else is going to pick up the ball, what do you think they should do?
Admittedly, they are all hardware/software combos that cost a bit more than FCP and Premiere. In all fairness, however, if you're going to be building a real editing suite based on FCP that could compare to a Media Composer, you will be spending a damn near equivelant amount of money...
Any company that gets held hostage by another has been given their one chance to find another option. Apple Office may be Apple's only option. At least an Ace in the hole.
Secondly, Apple could do a better job than Microsoft any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Period.
Thirdly, I'm not sure I'd use the Open Office CODE base, but what Open Office DOES bring to the world is an open, XML-based, office file format. "It's the file format stupid." That is the issue. If the government ever wanted to put a bullet between Microsoft's eyes, it FORCES them to open the file format. Microsoft Office would cost less that $100 within 2 years. Guaranteed. There would be direct, FULLY compatible competition immediately. Suddenly I don't have to fear not being compatible with everyone else if I choose something other that MS Office.
The Open Office File Format could be that. That is my hope anyway.
If Apple is smart that is the format they'll use (whether they use the code base or not).
PDF and RTF are possibilities, however RTF doesn't do everything. And PDF is owned by Adobe. Adobe might be more frightening than Microsoft.
Originally posted by Amorph
The fact is that Apple steps in when and where other developers either aren't contributing at all, or aren't contributing enough. What was the Mac browser landscape like before Safari? What was the Mac video editing landscape like before FCP? What's the Mac office landscape like now? We have, um, AppleWorks, the poster child for Bad Carbon Ports(TM), and office:mac, which is dated, poorly designed, overpriced, not even perfectly document-compatible with its Windows counterpart, and unable to support basic OS X technologies to boot. Oh, and TextEdit. And a kinda-sorta version of Nisus. For something as bread-and-butter as a word processor, the options are pretty bleak right now - and the 800lb gorilla (MS) is waffling about whether there will be an update to office:mac after the next one. Apple can't wait for MS to decide that there won't be an Office 2004, because replacing a beast like Office isn't easy.
What about BBEdit? I know its not a word processor, but it's still pretty good.
Originally posted by Gizzmonic
Apple Office would be a bad, bad idea...[snip]...Making "Apple Office" free and/or cheap would further discourage Microsoft to abandon the platform. Mac IE is one thing (it wasn't generating any sort of revenue for Microsoft) but Mac Office is a cash cow. Microsoft is not going to axe it unless Apple does come up with "Apple Office".
If Apple attacks Microsoft with "Apple Office", and they leave the Mac platform, the Mac has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many potential switchers.
Keeping Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft developing on the Mac platform is VERY important.
The point is that MS *is* going to abandon MS Office:Mac. The multi-year deal that Apple and MS signed (Ms would continue to develop Office and IE would be the default browser) is over. The first overt move has been made by Apple by creating Safari, although the fault lies with MS, since IE has sucked for years. The writing is on the wall: now that the anti-trust suit is basically dead, MS wants to swat the Apple fly. (Although it has to do so in a way that ensures that no future anti-trust suit would be filed...)
When MS bought out Virtual PC, many Mac journalists/commentators duly fell into line and said this would be a good thing. Most Mac *users* (myself included) were however horrified and disgusted. We knew intrinsically that this was a Bad Thing (TM). In fact, I believe it is one more axe for MS to hold over Apple's head. For me, it is not a question of MS not swinging the axe, it is just a question of when.
As for other developers in the field...I'm not sure who else is developing Productivity Suites that are any real competitors for MS. Apple creating its own would not scare annyone away; MS has already cleared them out.
The developer angle is why I mentioned the possibility of going open source. Nobody is excited about doing office suites. But if developers have a few million lines of free code to poke around with, who knows...
Does MS really shift the .doc file format around all that much so that any third party really can't make something 100% compatible? It wouldn't surprise me, but I would have thought that even MS had to be relatively consistent in order not to piss off its corporate customers too much... But then again, I guess that's the point of having a monopoly, to be able to do whatever you want...
Conversely..or additionally...Apple could gather a group around itself (developers, educational institutions, major corporate types who are sick of MS's monopoly prices in the business world, etc.) to initiate a true open (ISO) standard for word processing documents, whether or not it is XML-based or whatever. Force MS to play ball.
As for MS leaving the Mac market, many would probably be dissappointed or scared. But if Apple has truly killer hardware, OS, and software...and they don't need MS and all its spyware, expensive upgrades, etc. they might feel relieved. A bunch of friends of mine (computer geeks) swear that they want to create an MS-free home because of the privacy issues. They are refusing to upgrade to XP, and are surviving on cracked versions of Windows 2000. (Unfortunately, they like games too much to go whole hog and dump wintel altogether, but that's another issue.) They all make their livings doing various computer (Wintel) related things, and they hate MS more than I do!
The point of all this is that I believe the "platform wars" which went into armistice a few years ago are about to heat up. Apple would be suicidal to try and play the "can't we all be friends" game. The only way MS will continue to develop Office:Mac is if Apple's marketshare skyrockets to 20%+, and gains major, gigantic inroads in the corporate market. But I also think MS will do everything in its power to keep that from happening...things like cancelling Office:mac...
-DCQ
Of course whatever they made would have to be 110% compatible with windows counter-parts, because, even though Apple has made some strides in this area, it is still a very commmon misconception that Apple products are incompatible with everything.
Office.X is a good suite, it has it's problems sure, but it also works, and there are gobs and gobs of cool features. The challenge presented for Apple is to make a suite that not only trumps MS office, but offers something that MS dosen't offer, and in an easily accessible way. Something very useful.
I'm not an office professional so I can't say off the bat what Office needs, or any features that would make me want to jump ship in favor of another app with those features. But I'm sure there has to be something.
I guees seemless integration with the Apple system, and ease-of use, would be what apple could offer, but on top of that, what?
I think Apple could 'easily' do it, meaning they have the talent and the tech to create an office suite. Filemaker, Keynote... what is missing? A relatively simple word processor - I think Excel is going to be the sticking point, that won't be nearly as easy, and compatibility will be a must.
Originally posted by DCQ
The point is that MS *is* going to abandon MS Office:Mac. The multi-year deal that Apple and MS signed (Ms would continue to develop Office and IE would be the default browser) is over. The first overt move has been made by Apple by creating Safari, although the fault lies with MS, since IE has sucked for years. The writing is on the wall: now that the anti-trust suit is basically dead, MS wants to swat the Apple fly. (Although it has to do so in a way that ensures that no future anti-trust suit would be filed...)
When MS bought out Virtual PC, many Mac journalists/commentators duly fell into line and said this would be a good thing. Most Mac *users* (myself included) were however horrified and disgusted. We knew intrinsically that this was a Bad Thing (TM). In fact, I believe it is one more axe for MS to hold over Apple's head. For me, it is not a question of MS not swinging the axe, it is just a question of when.
As for other developers in the field...I'm not sure who else is developing Productivity Suites that are any real competitors for MS. Apple creating its own would not scare annyone away; MS has already cleared them out.
The developer angle is why I mentioned the possibility of going open source. Nobody is excited about doing office suites. But if developers have a few million lines of free code to poke around with, who knows...
Does MS really shift the .doc file format around all that much so that any third party really can't make something 100% compatible? It wouldn't surprise me, but I would have thought that even MS had to be relatively consistent in order not to piss off its corporate customers too much... But then again, I guess that's the point of having a monopoly, to be able to do whatever you want...
Conversely..or additionally...Apple could gather a group around itself (developers, educational institutions, major corporate types who are sick of MS's monopoly prices in the business world, etc.) to initiate a true open (ISO) standard for word processing documents, whether or not it is XML-based or whatever. Force MS to play ball.
As for MS leaving the Mac market, many would probably be dissappointed or scared. But if Apple has truly killer hardware, OS, and software...and they don't need MS and all its spyware, expensive upgrades, etc. they might feel relieved. A bunch of friends of mine (computer geeks) swear that they want to create an MS-free home because of the privacy issues. They are refusing to upgrade to XP, and are surviving on cracked versions of Windows 2000. (Unfortunately, they like games too much to go whole hog and dump wintel altogether, but that's another issue.) They all make their livings doing various computer (Wintel) related things, and they hate MS more than I do!
The point of all this is that I believe the "platform wars" which went into armistice a few years ago are about to heat up. Apple would be suicidal to try and play the "can't we all be friends" game. The only way MS will continue to develop Office:Mac is if Apple's marketshare skyrockets to 20%+, and gains major, gigantic inroads in the corporate market. But I also think MS will do everything in its power to keep that from happening...things like cancelling Office:mac...
-DCQ
You bring up some good and interesting points.
But I think it's time for Apple to move on or die. Apple can't be MS's lapdog forever. I think the time is right for Apple to prove to the world that they are the best and that they can regain the marketshare they badly need.
If they fail, they die. If they succeed, well, they succeed!
But they can't go on like this, barely surviving, and needing MS to keep them afloat.
Apple has some killer apps coming out. The FCP4 suite has just been released. DVD Studio Pro 2 is coming soon. The recently released iTunes 4+iTMS combo is awesome. iDVD 3. iMovie 3. These last apps are, IMO, killer apps and, in fact, there are no equals out on PCs.
Not to mention that Panther is coming out and equally amazing hardware.
If Apple dies in a few years, it wouldn't be because the software wasn't good or because the hardware sucked. It'd be because Apple didn't manage to market their stuff correctly.
Switcher ads and all that bullshit doesn't explain how Macs work one bit. "My PC went kablooie", and "My printer ate my paper" doesn't show that Macs are better.
Apple needs to really show that making movies on a computer can be fun and painless. Buying music is as simple as one-click. Configuring a network via Rendezvous is as simple as picking your nose and scratching your ass.
It's great that the iTunes music store got rave reviews...but Apple needs to get in the consumer's face and stop them from looking at any other alternative because, hey, the iTMS *is* the best.
Apple shouldn't just show apps one at a time. Apple should list all their killer apps and tell the world that these apps are available out of the box and are simple to use.
Current Mac users should invite people to see these apps.
Apple's got their Apple Stores ready. I'm sure they'll start advertising their products more and more now that they actually don't suck.
Mac users should also advertise if they care for the platform.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Apple needs to really show that making movies on a computer can be fun and painless. Buying music is as simple as one-click. Configuring a network via Rendezvous is as simple as picking your nose and scratching your ass.
Your challenge is to make the ad in such a way that it doesn't look like every other "our product is the easiest to use, and it does everything you want in a gyroscope!" ad, including all the ads for XP. Or remember the ad favorably comparing the Gateway Profile 4 to the iMac?
There's a reason Apple isn't going that way: It's the oldest cliché in the business, everyone knows that the claims made in those ads range from dubious to bogus, and I doubt there's anything Apple could do to make their version of the cliché convincing where everyone else's isn't.
As a number of switchers have pointed out in their blogs and web page updates, you really do have to use a Mac to figure out what its advantages are. So the best advertising Apple can do is advertising that puts people in front of a Mac. Curiosity is sufficient. (If they can get rid of the last few roadblocks to compatibility with e.g. Windows networks, all the better.)
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).
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If Apple did not begin strategizing about some kind of "Apple Office" suite the day after Microsoft extorted them 5-6 years ago for continued development of Microsoft Office, frankly they deserve to go out of business!
Now that the RDF around that event has worn off (for me), here's my take, with generous helpings of ideas from lurking on these forums. Forget the sideshow of Gates showing up as big brother. Steve Jobs was continuing to perpetrate a big ol' whammy on the silicon world, and most of us fell for it.
After a covert, reverse buyout of Apple by NeXT, he convinced Gates to give Apple money, software, and time to breathe. "I don't wanna play with you right now, uh, I've got a headache, why don't you just continue on without me. I'll be behind this curtain, tinkering away..." (Imagine Jobs strumming his fingers together evilly behind that curtain, if it helps.)
Processor angst aside, Apple is a company that's found it's groove
Putting MS at arms length was a smoke screen. Time enough to shore up both software and hardware, secretly working on both -- we were watching Keynote for a year, and IIRC, no one (really) guessed the iPod -- all while fixing for a platform that didn't need MS. Mordorolla's incompetency put the spotlight on next gen hardware sooner than it should have, but it doesn't mean Apple wasn't at work on it long before. I remember the ApplePi rumors long before the 970 ones.
AppleOffice is definately coming, but hopefully not by that name. Making 'office' apps from MS irrelevant on the Mac started with Mail and Address Book. Continued with iCal, iChat, Safari and Keynote. Mimicking Word and Excel doesn't really gel with the NeXT philosophy of small purposeful apps, or Apple's easy to use philosophy. How long does it take to sreamline them? Get interoperability with the PC versions? I don't know, but Apple's tinkering away at it. They'll release them when they're ready.
Originally posted by Flippy
Mimicking Word and Excel doesn't really gel with the NeXT philosophy of small purposeful apps, or Apple's easy to use philosophy. How long does it take to sreamline them? Get interoperability with the PC versions? I don't know, but Apple's tinkering away at it. They'll release them when they're ready.
Overall excellent post.
On this point I agree to the extent that Word and Excel have become "Swiss Army Knives". This is most definitely not Apple (NeXT) style. Smaller. Simpler. Cleaner. Just a word processor. Doesn't also slice, dice and make Julianne Fries. I almost think that TextEdit++ is where they would go. And it would work with Keynote, and Address Book and iCal and Mail (as appropriate and as needed...for example mail merge naturally uses AddressBook). Think (possibly) Nisus Writer (the new one, formerly Okito). Why doesn't Apple just buy them. Maybe they will.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Overall excellent post.
On this point I agree to the extent that Word and Excel have become "Swiss Army Knives". This is most definitely not Apple (NeXT) style. Smaller. Simpler. Cleaner. Just a word processor. Doesn't also slice, dice and make Julianne Fries.
hmmm... sounds like something i remember from 1996-97. went by the name of "OpenDoc" or something.
well, okay, opendoc was taking that "bit and pieces" approach to sublime extreme (great in theory, nightmare to market), but the sentiment is still there.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
OpenDoc is alive and well at least to a fair extent in Cocoa objects and frameworks. You can use standard Cocoa text in any app, access the Address Book from any app, etc. That's why Apple doesn't have to buy NisusWriter, because most of its features are in Apple's own frameworks, and we already know from the seminar description at WWDC there are improvements coming to Cocoa text and such with Panther. Now imagine search and replace being fueled by the v-twin engine that the Finder, and such uses. They have tables in Keynote, the Keynote rules with auto-guides, etc. This is the sort of stuff Apple already has that it can build all this software with. Like OpenDoc, most of the pieces are there, they just have to put in place.
Agreed. Good point. No reason to buy Nisus.
Personally, I am quite impressed with Keynote (as I am with most Apple software). It is well thought out. Features are not added just for the sake of adding them. You get the sense of purpose behind almost everything. I expect the same thing with "Document" (or whatever they call it).
This is true generally about Apple software (and hardware). Some things that look like there just there for show, you later find were some well conceived idea that makes using these things easier, more pleasant, more powerful.
I like to take a short step back and trying to see if I can discern where Apple is GOING rather than where they currently are. Applications (and hardware) delivered today are often only pieces (and possibly only partially completed) pieces of a larger strategy. The point of the Cocoa frameworks is typical. You get the feeling they are getting all of the pieces together. And the "whamo" they "suddenly" come out with this stunning application "out of thin air". When all the time it has been sitting right under the noses of 3rd party developers.