Someone said that .app-like Bundles are cross-platform but they're not. They appear on other platforms as folders. The OO.o format is a zipped folder which gives you the same benefits (and much smaller size since xml compressed well) without that major drawback.
Hmmm... the Finder in 10.3 now has built-in zip/unzip capabilities, which could possibly (maybe) be used to help apps deal with these zipped bundle-like things. Curiouser and curiouser...
I'd love to see an Apple word processor. Rather than create yet another file format, I'd like to see them use OpenOffice as it's default load/save format. Word .doc support would have to be there as well, but I think throwing their weight behind a "standard" "open" format would be a good move for Apple, and a good move for the format itself (which in turn is another good move for Apple and other apps that support it!)
I suppose the OpenOffice.org file formats would be good. They're certainly open enough to be a baseline. I, philosophically, like a lot about OpenOffice, and on Windows it's not a bad set of programs. Sadly, on the Mac, it's utterly unusable.
Though given the OS's support of it, RTF might be a more practical "standard" document type for Apple to utilize. Not that that's the filetype I would want to see employed.
Frank, since a MacWrite X or whatever would never have more than 3% market share or so, I can't imagine that Corel, or even the OpenOffice bunch, would care much about supporting the file format.
However, so long as it can output proper RTF, DOC or PDF, then the rest of the world can read my work. Can't imagine that Apple would leave such a feature out.
You're forgetting that RTF, DOC and PDF export are already built into OS X (DOC's in there as of Panther). Apple would have to work to not support them.
So the interesting thing is the native document format, which would have to be more powerful and flexible than those more limited export formats.
I know that everyone is thinking XML, especially Microsoft which wants to do their typical "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach or, in this case, "promote, pretend, propriate."
The reason I think PDF might be the way to go as the native format is simply because the vast majority of computer users are still idiots. Having the ability to export to PDF isn't good enough. You need to be able to tell someone, "Use this processor and whatever files you make can be directly sent to anyone and they should be able to read them."
BTW, whats the deal with "Microsoft" being replaced with a bunch of smileys if you spell it with a "$" instead of an "S"?
The reason I think PDF might be the way to go as the native format is simply because the vast majority of computer users are still idiots. Having the ability to export to PDF isn't good enough. You need to be able to tell someone, "Use this processor and whatever files you make can be directly sent to anyone and they should be able to read them."
What happens when another idiot needs to edit the file?
You're forgetting that RTF, DOC and PDF export are already built into OS X (DOC's in there as of Panther). Apple would have to work to not support them.
I hadn't forgotten that at all, actually. I just assumed everyone else knew that as well. My statement was more of a truism than anything else.
What happens when another idiot needs to edit the file?
That is a good question, though perhaps not as much of an issue as one might think. I don't know about you all, but most of the word processing documents I receive day in and day out are for viewing, not for editing. The only time I tend to edit another person's document, and have them edit mine, is when we're collaborating. And for all sorts of reasons you'd want to be using the same software as your collaboration partner, not just the same document format.
Besides, PDF provides for form filling, which is most of what I would ever need to edit other people's documents for anyway.
Good point. This would be perfect for many environments, particularly areas involving contracts and other legal documents: it would allow Person X to create a document with secured, uneditable boiler plate, but still allow Person Y to contribute their portion of the document.
Thinking about things like the ratio of write-to-read of documents.
Thinking about document work flows.
Thinking about editability, collaboration and version control of documents.
It seems to me that Word has grown by simply adding features. But every once in a while, there comes a time to stop and re-think the whole thing. I have to assume that this is the way Apple is thinking about this particular piece of software. Asking the good questions.
The reason I say this is the evidence I see in the past of products they produce. Its as if they look at a product and say "What do people REALLY want to do with this?" And then build it. Only then do we find a product that has quite a few less features, but somehow does (almost) everything I need.
Mail? iCal? iPhoto? Safari?
Not perfect applications, but seemingly do what I am suggesting.
Should we maybe indulge in setting an ultimatum? A date which, if it passes Apple-office-less, will be the death of all Apple-office speculation. The other case, of course, would mean the contrary.
Should we maybe indulge in setting an ultimatum? A date which, if it passes Apple-office-less, will be the death of all Apple-office speculation. The other case, of course, would mean the contrary.
Should we maybe indulge in setting an ultimatum? A date which, if it passes Apple-office-less, will be the death of all Apple-office speculation. The other case, of course, would mean the contrary.
As one of the leading posters in virtually every AppleOffice thread, I'll bite...
In my view, the point right now is not whether there will be an AppleOffice, but whether it will include a Word Processor and Spreadsheet - and how Redmond will respond if it does.
Der Kopf, while you may be tiring of the many AppleOffice threads, the fact is that RIGHT NOW we have AppleOffice software in the Presentation, Database, Websurfing and Communication categories.
The last three have meant that MS has never deployed Access on the Mac and has had to discontinue IE and Outlook Express.
Furthermore, Filemaker has announced that they will deploy a Project Management solution soon. No MS Project on the Mac, ever.
With so many products recently updated, it's hard to believe that Apple has a lot of hardware to promote at MWSF. Keynote was released at MWSF 2003. If Apple has a WP or Spreadsheet to unveil, you'll only have to put up with these threads for two more months.
I think it's probably inevitable (and welcome) that Apple will introduce an office suite. It occurred to me that if they made their default format PDF they would largely eliminate concerns about compatibility.
At least you could be sure that people in the PC world could read your documents without having to export them.
Reading them would be another matter, but I can see a collaboration with Adobe to make sure that all PC PDF reader installations also install a PDF to word converter.
I'm not sure as to whether a spreadsheet and presentation format could also be in PDF, but don't see why not.
yep. I'd rather use some [open] XML-based format. Then again, we've all but forgotten about .cwk. Appleworks! It is a format, they could just extend it. Why not RTF?
* It's closed.
* It's developed by Microsoft, which wouldn't be appealing to MS avoiders.
* It's big! An XML based file could be much more efficent.
That's going to be a problem with any format, but at least with PDF you solve the biggest problem- being sure other people can read your documents.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but one of the reasons I use a WP to generate text is so people can edit and change my documents. If I just wanted people to read them, I'd send paper or a plain text email.
Quote:
If you want someone to be able to edit it, what are your options?
1. Find out what software they have and try to export the doc so they can use it.
And we seem to back to square one with the idiot user issue don't we?
Quote:
2. Point them to a free ap that will edit your doc and hope they don't mind the trouble of installing it.
See above. Also nothing like gaining marketshare by making things harder.
Quote:
3. Convince them to buy the same software you have.
You think the other 90+% of computer users would do that?
Quote:
4. Concede to the microsoft monopoly, use MS word, and blame them for not following the herd.
Using a known file format is not caving into a monopoly. Some time back people used to call that smart. Think Apple caved into the Adobe monopoly by making .PDF ubiquitous. Or was it a good call considering their trad market of designer?
And for all sorts of reasons you'd want to be using the same software as your collaboration partner, not just the same document format.
Comments like this make me sad.
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
As a scientist I love PDFs Getting articles meant getting to the library taking copies that washed out grayscale images and eliminated all colors. Ending up with piles of paper
Now I download articles from the net as PDF save them in orderly ways on my computer. Make nice sharp printouts even in color if I need to and if I lose a print out I do not have to go to the library again
Is PDF perfect? No, but what is? (excluding some Speyside single malts)
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
While it would be nice if there were a universal word processor format, it's just not so, and likely never will be -- unless you count RTF or DOC. And for better or worse, I need a format that is totally compatible between myself, my editor and anyone else with whom I am collaborating. That's not me giving into a monopoly, that's me putting my needs as a writer ahead of my philosophical desire for open technology.
The document format is where Microsoft's true power lies. And while I will embrace and use an Apple word processor, I don't see it ever displacing the unassailable DOC.
While it would be nice if there were a universal word processor format, it's just not so, and likely never will be -- unless you count RTF or DOC. And for better or worse, I need a format that is totally compatible between myself, my editor and anyone else with whom I am collaborating. That's not me giving into a monopoly, that's me putting my needs as a writer ahead of my philosophical desire for open technology.
The document format is where Microsoft's true power lies. And while I will embrace and use an Apple word processor, I don't see it ever displacing the unassailable DOC.
There is a universal format. SGML. Used by governments and business all over the world. SGML meets all your listed needs and it is an open format.
Also, you don't get viruses in sgml docs. Maybe adobe should do some rethinking about framemaker.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Someone said that .app-like Bundles are cross-platform but they're not. They appear on other platforms as folders. The OO.o format is a zipped folder which gives you the same benefits (and much smaller size since xml compressed well) without that major drawback.
Hmmm... the Finder in 10.3 now has built-in zip/unzip capabilities, which could possibly (maybe) be used to help apps deal with these zipped bundle-like things. Curiouser and curiouser...
I'd love to see an Apple word processor. Rather than create yet another file format, I'd like to see them use OpenOffice as it's default load/save format. Word .doc support would have to be there as well, but I think throwing their weight behind a "standard" "open" format would be a good move for Apple, and a good move for the format itself (which in turn is another good move for Apple and other apps that support it!)
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
Though given the OS's support of it, RTF might be a more practical "standard" document type for Apple to utilize. Not that that's the filetype I would want to see employed.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
Frank, since a MacWrite X or whatever would never have more than 3% market share or so, I can't imagine that Corel, or even the OpenOffice bunch, would care much about supporting the file format.
However, so long as it can output proper RTF, DOC or PDF, then the rest of the world can read my work. Can't imagine that Apple would leave such a feature out.
You're forgetting that RTF, DOC and PDF export are already built into OS X (DOC's in there as of Panther). Apple would have to work to not support them.
So the interesting thing is the native document format, which would have to be more powerful and flexible than those more limited export formats.
The reason I think PDF might be the way to go as the native format is simply because the vast majority of computer users are still idiots. Having the ability to export to PDF isn't good enough. You need to be able to tell someone, "Use this processor and whatever files you make can be directly sent to anyone and they should be able to read them."
BTW, whats the deal with "Microsoft" being replaced with a bunch of smileys if you spell it with a "$" instead of an "S"?
The reason I think PDF might be the way to go as the native format is simply because the vast majority of computer users are still idiots. Having the ability to export to PDF isn't good enough. You need to be able to tell someone, "Use this processor and whatever files you make can be directly sent to anyone and they should be able to read them."
What happens when another idiot needs to edit the file?
Originally posted by Amorph
You're forgetting that RTF, DOC and PDF export are already built into OS X (DOC's in there as of Panther). Apple would have to work to not support them.
I hadn't forgotten that at all, actually. I just assumed everyone else knew that as well. My statement was more of a truism than anything else.
Originally posted by cowerd
What happens when another idiot needs to edit the file?
That is a good question, though perhaps not as much of an issue as one might think. I don't know about you all, but most of the word processing documents I receive day in and day out are for viewing, not for editing. The only time I tend to edit another person's document, and have them edit mine, is when we're collaborating. And for all sorts of reasons you'd want to be using the same software as your collaboration partner, not just the same document format.
Originally posted by cowerd
What happens when another idiot needs to edit the file?
That's going to be a problem with any format, but at least with PDF you solve the biggest problem- being sure other people can read your documents.
If you want someone to be able to edit it, what are your options?
1. Find out what software they have and try to export the doc so they can use it.
2. Point them to a free ap that will edit your doc and hope they don't mind the trouble of installing it.
3. Convince them to buy the same software you have.
4. Concede to the microsoft monopoly, use MS word, and blame them for not following the herd.
Besides, PDF provides for form filling, which is most of what I would ever need to edit other people's documents for anyway.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Besides, PDF provides for form filling, which is most of what I would ever need to edit other people's documents for anyway.
Good point. This would be perfect for many environments, particularly areas involving contracts and other legal documents: it would allow Person X to create a document with secured, uneditable boiler plate, but still allow Person Y to contribute their portion of the document.
Thinking about things like the ratio of write-to-read of documents.
Thinking about document work flows.
Thinking about editability, collaboration and version control of documents.
It seems to me that Word has grown by simply adding features. But every once in a while, there comes a time to stop and re-think the whole thing. I have to assume that this is the way Apple is thinking about this particular piece of software. Asking the good questions.
The reason I say this is the evidence I see in the past of products they produce. Its as if they look at a product and say "What do people REALLY want to do with this?" And then build it. Only then do we find a product that has quite a few less features, but somehow does (almost) everything I need.
Mail? iCal? iPhoto? Safari?
Not perfect applications, but seemingly do what I am suggesting.
Originally posted by der Kopf
Should we maybe indulge in setting an ultimatum? A date which, if it passes Apple-office-less, will be the death of all Apple-office speculation. The other case, of course, would mean the contrary.
How about tomorrow?
Originally posted by der Kopf
Should we maybe indulge in setting an ultimatum? A date which, if it passes Apple-office-less, will be the death of all Apple-office speculation. The other case, of course, would mean the contrary.
As one of the leading posters in virtually every AppleOffice thread, I'll bite...
In my view, the point right now is not whether there will be an AppleOffice, but whether it will include a Word Processor and Spreadsheet - and how Redmond will respond if it does.
Der Kopf, while you may be tiring of the many AppleOffice threads, the fact is that RIGHT NOW we have AppleOffice software in the Presentation, Database, Websurfing and Communication categories.
The last three have meant that MS has never deployed Access on the Mac and has had to discontinue IE and Outlook Express.
Furthermore, Filemaker has announced that they will deploy a Project Management solution soon. No MS Project on the Mac, ever.
With so many products recently updated, it's hard to believe that Apple has a lot of hardware to promote at MWSF. Keynote was released at MWSF 2003. If Apple has a WP or Spreadsheet to unveil, you'll only have to put up with these threads for two more months.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I think it's probably inevitable (and welcome) that Apple will introduce an office suite. It occurred to me that if they made their default format PDF they would largely eliminate concerns about compatibility.
At least you could be sure that people in the PC world could read your documents without having to export them.
Reading them would be another matter, but I can see a collaboration with Adobe to make sure that all PC PDF reader installations also install a PDF to word converter.
I'm not sure as to whether a spreadsheet and presentation format could also be in PDF, but don't see why not.
yep. I'd rather use some [open] XML-based format. Then again, we've all but forgotten about .cwk. Appleworks! It is a format, they could just extend it. Why not RTF?
* It's closed.
* It's developed by Microsoft, which wouldn't be appealing to MS avoiders.
* It's big! An XML based file could be much more efficent.
That's going to be a problem with any format, but at least with PDF you solve the biggest problem- being sure other people can read your documents.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but one of the reasons I use a WP to generate text is so people can edit and change my documents. If I just wanted people to read them, I'd send paper or a plain text email.
If you want someone to be able to edit it, what are your options?
1. Find out what software they have and try to export the doc so they can use it.
And we seem to back to square one with the idiot user issue don't we?
2. Point them to a free ap that will edit your doc and hope they don't mind the trouble of installing it.
See above. Also nothing like gaining marketshare by making things harder.
3. Convince them to buy the same software you have.
You think the other 90+% of computer users would do that?
4. Concede to the microsoft monopoly, use MS word, and blame them for not following the herd.
Using a known file format is not caving into a monopoly. Some time back people used to call that smart. Think Apple caved into the Adobe monopoly by making .PDF ubiquitous. Or was it a good call considering their trad market of designer?
Originally posted by Kirkland
And for all sorts of reasons you'd want to be using the same software as your collaboration partner, not just the same document format.
Comments like this make me sad.
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Comments like this make me sad.
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
Amen.
Now I download articles from the net as PDF save them in orderly ways on my computer. Make nice sharp printouts even in color if I need to and if I lose a print out I do not have to go to the library again
Is PDF perfect? No, but what is? (excluding some Speyside single malts)
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Comments like this make me sad.
This is exactly what software monopolists want you to think, yet it is totally untrue, except to the extent that they make it so with intentional incompatabilities.
The best thing that Apple is doing right now is using open standards that allow people to use whatever tool is right for the job.
The reason that MS Word (and the OO.o clone of it) is such a horrifically bad app is because it has expanded to extinguish the market for what should be hundreds, if not thousands, of separate, competing applications that share a file format but are tailored for different users, just like iTunes, Soundtrack and others all use the same audio formats.
While it would be nice if there were a universal word processor format, it's just not so, and likely never will be -- unless you count RTF or DOC. And for better or worse, I need a format that is totally compatible between myself, my editor and anyone else with whom I am collaborating. That's not me giving into a monopoly, that's me putting my needs as a writer ahead of my philosophical desire for open technology.
The document format is where Microsoft's true power lies. And while I will embrace and use an Apple word processor, I don't see it ever displacing the unassailable DOC.
Originally posted by Kirkland
While it would be nice if there were a universal word processor format, it's just not so, and likely never will be -- unless you count RTF or DOC. And for better or worse, I need a format that is totally compatible between myself, my editor and anyone else with whom I am collaborating. That's not me giving into a monopoly, that's me putting my needs as a writer ahead of my philosophical desire for open technology.
The document format is where Microsoft's true power lies. And while I will embrace and use an Apple word processor, I don't see it ever displacing the unassailable DOC.
There is a universal format. SGML. Used by governments and business all over the world. SGML meets all your listed needs and it is an open format.
Also, you don't get viruses in sgml docs. Maybe adobe should do some rethinking about framemaker.