AppleWorks X?

[nuckinfutz]

Weldon

Actually while I believe it's false I could be wrong. I don't think anyone knows what the effect of not having MS Office support would entail. I don't think there's harm in adding support but we'll see how MS takes that.

Open Office. I don't think it's bad it just doesn't stand out to me. Its like its clame to fame is that its free and MS Office like.

Apple is going to need an Office Suite that is based around Cocoa/Carbon frameworks and Quicktime. While Open Office is Open Source its still a tough task to get that code into Apple's API.

Apple's made great strides with the underlying technology of OSX. We have

Rendezvous- for easy network discovery of resources. I think this can play a huge part in evolving the Office Suite.

Cocoa/Carbon text - Apple has sweetened the APIs for text handling. Cocoa text is particularly good right now.

PDF support - PDF is huge. Its really the most popular open format for delivering content. Tiger has a new set of cocoa classes for PDF called pdf kit. The ability to annotate pdfs and copy/paste text from within a supporting cocoa app will be great.

Quicktime - Why build a Office Suite around Quicktime. Because Quicktime is multimedia. Microsoft has nothing that compares to the Quicktime frameworks. Apple should be leveraging this everywhere.

Apple is small and nimble compared to Microsoft. Why they continue to hitch their boat to boutique hardware and iPods is beyond me. It's time to start attacking the biz sector and edu with a decent Appleworks and biz Apple Office and start showing people a new paradigm.

 

[biederman]

Weldon

Apple is going to need an Office Suite that is based around Cocoa/Carbon frameworks and Quicktime.

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

 

[nuckinfutz]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

Biederman,
The reason why I had to put reference both Cocoa and Carbon is because the two API for handling text are likely to vary in certain ways that could affect how we interact. I couldn't give you any examples because I haven't begun my programming classes or read the documentation. pdf kit in Tiger though is Cocoa only as of now. Yes saying "based on Quicktime" is somewhat confusing to some people who think of Quicktime as the player application only. I just think that QT should be a vital piece in an Apple Suite. If can differentiate Apple from the MS Office clones.

Yes I think Apple has very little chance of doing any damage to MS Office. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if Apple developed a suite and did not have MS Office compatibility. Yes I know that sounds crazy but here's my reasononing. Apple needs a suite that they can tie in with other applications. We take MS Office for granted but anyone who's used Endnote or other applications knows that 3rd parties need to extend the suite in various ways. Apple shouldn't be depending on MS here. They need their own biz class suite that is open for 3rd parties to extend. I doubt they would deliver a suite that isn't compatible with MS Office but I guess I'm just trying to say that not everyone needs MS Office. I like to write just for myself...I don't need office for that or even a suite. Apple does a great job with software ...its sad that they are like MS' puppet sometimes.

Apple get those tools you've worked hard at and build something befitting a Macintosh. Geez I didn't buy a Mac so I can run MS products I got it to run software by artisans.

 

[iMeowbot]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon.

It's simply that the text services from Cocoa are especially good, particularly their support for multiple languages. They can be used from "Carbon" programs as well. The distinction between Coca and Carbon isn't all that sharp; they can be mixed and matched in a single application.

Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.

No. QuickTime Player is an application wrapped around QuickTime, but QuickTime itself is a library. For example, most of what iTunes and iPhoto do is really built into QuickTime.

QT support is important in broad-use applications to allow seamless integration with other data on the system. It's the chocolatey goodness that lets one drag an image or movie into even a TextEdit window and have it work as intended.

The same is true of PDF (though in that case, little is required to take advantage of it; you get the basics for "free."

But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions.

I would argue that this is an artificial distinction brought on by experience with existing software. It becomes painfully obvious when one sees Excel, Word and PowerPoint all "misused" to create things like signs and brochures. Of course, business and educational users alike bend these tools into strange contortions because they need to get something done. Neither audience really wants or needs to jump through hoops to get work done.

This is one area where ClarisWorks got it right (and OpenDoc would have got it right, if it hadn't been abandoned). That's where Cocoa (and in particular AppKit) gets interesting, it makes all the basic tool types available and makes it very straightforward to mix and match them.

Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market.

The same was once said of Wang and even IBM. Wang didn't have so much of a document interchange lock but a training lock on its market, but IBM card and tape formats were once seen as universal must-have items like Word files are viewed by many today.

Now, Wang wasn't killed by Microsoft. It was killed by WordPerfect (easier to use and ran on general-purpose minicomputers and PCs) and MultiMate (retained the Wang skill set and put it on cheaper hardware).

IBM still have a market for the giant beasts, but those did give way in applications where a more flexible type of interaction served better. In a lot of ways, its original market even rebounded (really, what is a Web browser other than a prettier 3270?)

Anyway, Office only rules its roost until an easier way to do what it does comes along that can do all the same things. Those things don't have to be done in the same way, but all the bases need to be covered. No product is forever.

 

[Porchland]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

With Apple recently TM-ing "iWork," I wonder if you're close to the mark here. "iWork" would certainly be easy to market as a parallel to iLife. Where iLife has iTunes, iPhoto, , iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand, iWork would feature a word-processing program (that generates files compatible with Word and WordPerfect), a spreadsheet, a presentation app (an updated Keynote) and a personal finance program (like Quicken or Money). Also, possibly a reworked and consolidated iCal/Address Book/Mail app.

Is this a repurposed AppleWorks? Ehhh, sort of. I always saw AppleWorks as more of a home-project app, but word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, accounting and mail/calendar apps are more or less Microsoft Office plus Quicken.

I'm guessing AppleWorks gets dumped and iWork is a new suite that replaces it.

 

[sigamy]

The current x11 implementation is poor, I agree. I'd like to see them use the opensource codebase for file compatability and then put a kick-ass native OS X interface on it.

I agree. Maybe this is what the next AppleWorks or iWorks will be. Maybe Apple took over the Aqua port for Open Office and got it done 2 years ahead of schedule!

 

[biederman]

We take MS Office for granted but anyone who's used Endnote or other applications knows that 3rd parties need to extend the suite in various ways. Apple shouldn't be depending on MS here. They need their own biz class suite that is open for 3rd parties to extend. I doubt they would deliver a suite that isn't compatible with MS Office but I guess I'm just trying to say that not everyone needs MS Office.

This is absolutely right. Think about how amazing a productivity suite could be if it allowed third-party developers to extend it, such as creating "vertical" applications for industries such as health care, education or legal. I don't see this ever happening with Office, and haven't seen it (yet?) with OpenOffice. Although Office won't die any time soon, I do foresee a decline of the bloated general-purpose office suite in favor of more specialized apps.

 

[skunk]

This is absolutely right. Think about how amazing a productivity suite could be if it allowed third-party developers to extend it, such as creating "vertical" applications for industries such as health care, education or legal. I don't see this ever happening with Office, and haven't seen it (yet?) with OpenOffice. Although Office won't die any time soon, I do foresee a decline of the bloated general-purpose office suite in favor of more specialized apps.

Remember OpenDoc? That was a very similar idea, way back in the Dark Ages. Always sounded good to me, with its "Components" and stuff.

 

[GregA]

Remember OpenDoc? That was a very similar idea, way back in the Dark Ages. Always sounded good to me, with its "Components" and stuff.

I'm not so sure they are similar, but I certainly liked the idea of OpenDoc. If I open a word document, spreadsheet, pdf, or whatever, they're all really "documents" and it'd be nice to have them present themselves similarly to each other (even if in the background they called on other applications).

The idea of having other vertical apps call upon the use of some very high level functions (like spreadsheet, database, pdf viewer) is a good one - isn't Apple already doing that with text editing and viewing functions? Also, they say they're moving pdf viewing into the operating system, and Tiger has a built in database engine... which all sounds pretty good. I wonder what kind of effort it is to make a suite when all that is already there?

 

[biederman]

The idea of having other vertical apps call upon the use of some very high level functions (like spreadsheet, database, pdf viewer) is a good one - isn't Apple already doing that with text editing and viewing functions? Also, they say they're moving pdf viewing into the operating system, and Tiger has a built in database engine... which all sounds pretty good. I wonder what kind of effort it is to make a suite when all that is already there?

Yes, moving the database engine into the OS sounds interesting, and quite useful for an office suite. I think there may be synergies or commonalities here with Filemaker, since a number of 3rd-parties have "extended" Filemaker in various useful ways. If this is what Apple is thinking, then we may have to wait for Tiger next year to see the new app.

 

[GregA]

If this is what Apple is thinking, then we may have to wait for Tiger next year to see the new app.

Or you get a suite with Filemaker this year, and a new Filemaker next year which integrates with the OS-database somehow.

Likewise, the Write application could build in it's own pdf frameworks (copies from the preview app?) until they're in the OS.

I'd love to see a nice office suite but I'm not holding my breath (cross platform too!).
Apple - for every 1 great thing they do there are 2 others that they don't do and we never know why.

 

[GSL-SEX2]

I can't wait for an upgraded, Office-compatable "Apple Works".

I don't need *all* the features of Office. It's way too much. Just like I don't need *all* the features of Photoshop. Photoshop Elements cuts it 95% of the time for me.

I do think Apple should make a PC version as well tho. If you have users on both sides of the fence, it may start to phase out the "necessity" of Office.

PC users don't like to pay $500 or whatever for Office either. And most of them don't need all the features either.

Once there is a large user base, they could come out with "AppleWorks Pro" or whatever, to land a KO to Office's chin.

 

[ZipZilla]

Nope...

So Apple is working on an update to AW? The name "Apple Works X" could suggest its entirely written in Cocoa. It would be nice if there was some serious competiton to MS Office. Bring it on!

Ain't gonna happen. All indications are that Appleworks is EOL'd, and there is no way Apple is going to piss MS off any further.

In the unlikely event that Apple does update Appleworks, I hope it is not written in Cocoa, because then it would slower.

 

[GregA]

Ain't gonna happen. All indications are that Appleworks is EOL'd, and there is no way Apple is going to piss MS off any further.

In the unlikely event that Apple does update Appleworks, I hope it is not written in Cocoa, because then it would slower.

Wow, interesting assumptions.

Who has indicated Appleworks is EOL'd?
Has Apple pissed MS off already? Is that just by existing?
And if they did it once with Safari is that interpreted as they are willing to do it again, or that there is "no way" they'd go any further?
What evidence do you have the Cocoa is slow? Slower than what? And is that dependent on programming language?

Interested in your answers?

 

[ZipZilla]

Who has indicated Appleworks is EOL'd?

I would say 4 1/2 years without a new version speaks for itself.

Has Apple pissed MS off already? Is that just by existing?
And if they did it once with Safari is that interpreted as they are willing to do it again, or that there is "no way" they'd go any further?

Sure. Mail, Safari and Keynote...but Apple must have Office and Virtual PC if its Mac business is to thrive. There's just no way Apple is going to release a huge Appleworks upgrade to compete head-on with Office.

What evidence do you have the Cocoa is slow? Slower than what? And is that dependent on programming language?

Cocoa is just slower than Carbon. A good example is iMovie 3 and 4, which are dramatically slower than iMovie 2. It's just the nature of an object-oriented OS..it's also why Java is slow.

 

[stratacator]

As I understand it, computers these days are sufficiently quick such that the lag that is inherent in OOP is negligible. Also, from what I've heard Java is slow because it is interpreted, not compiled, like Objective-C.

 

[LaweranceOak]

Finally

I would love to see something more like Office, instead of using the Microsoft software. I have always thougth there would be light out there for Graphic Designers in a PC company.

 

[rendezvouscp]

I don't think that Apple is going to ever be a rival to Microsoft as far as AppleWorks and Office goes. AppleWorks is there to get you off the ground-and it's great for some people. What would a consumer-based computer be without some sort of writing app? It's somewhat of a necessity item. But, think of Office as AppleWorks Pro–it's higher end, compatible with (most) of the world, and actually looks good too. The Mac BU isn't something to be hated–they're a good part of Microsoft (maybe the only good part). I just don't see Apple rivaling Microsoft in this area, although I do believe that AppleWorks needs to be updated.
–Chase

 

[LaweranceOak]

Good point!!

I would rather just see a product like Office for the mac made by apple. Something that can handle it all and it would be designed by apple. The same people that seem to know what I always want and need in software.

 

[biederman]

What would a consumer-based computer be without some sort of writing app?
–Chase

Isn't TextEdit a writing app? I think it's a pretty good app, too -- it translates Word-formatted (.doc) files pretty well -- and I use it for all my correspondence now.
I do agree with your point, however, that Microsoft's Mac BU is not the enemy. It's in Apple's best interest to maintain compatibility between the Mac and Office, since it's vital for some buyers... although it's overkill for most consumers.

 

[t300]

I wake up everyday now hoping that there are some rumors or something about Appleworks X. Simply put, if it's coming out, it will be coming out soon...Maybe after Tiger? Maybe "with" Tiger? Perhaps Apple made a deal with Microsoft that they wouldn't release Appleworks within a certain date of when Office 2004 came out. Only time will tell.

 

[ZipZilla]

I wake up everyday now hoping that there are some rumors or something about Appleworks X. Simply put, if it's coming out, it will be coming out soon...Maybe after Tiger? Maybe "with" Tiger? Perhaps Apple made a deal with Microsoft that they wouldn't release Appleworks within a certain date of when Office 2004 came out. Only time will tell.

I wouldn't hold my breath!

 

[t300]

I wouldn't hold my breath!

Oh, I'm holding...​

 

[gooddog]

DOES ANYONE HAVE A NOTION ...

Sheesh people. I can't believe the "Appleworks X" is going over your head. Let me explain how it works.

Apple has a new product coming. They want to have 3rd party book for this product out so they contract out to a few writers. They are %100 sure about the name but if it's a previous version and not a totally new product they simply append an "X" onto the product. "X" has always signified "unkown" in some areas just as Malcom X kept the "X" until he "found" his true name.

What this "Appleworks X" means is that there IS a new version coming. Apple hasn't chosen a final version number. It could be Appleworks 6.5 or Appleworks 7 or Appleworks CS or whatever they want. The publishers will get the final name before mass production. Trust me Appleworks X is not going to be the final name.

How do I know this? Because I've been following book like this for a while and 6 months before Filemaker 7 shipped there were a couple "Filemaker X" books pending print. This is great news because we're getting something new in AW. It just depends on how large the update is.

So in short yes a new Appleworks is coming.

__________________

Does anyone have a notion of WHEN the next release of goodies will come ?

I want these app's badly -- but also , the
second version of iMac G5 ( built in BT standard ? ) maybe a 23" version ?

Who expects what in November Mac EXPO ?

I don't recall what this expo is usually about.


---gooddog

 

[Zaty]

The question is what Apple intends to with AW. The programm has remained untouched for a few years. So either they're really working on a new version or they will can it eventually.