strack said:Hey, sorry about that, actually the google link in the end convinced me. That would be pretty hard to fake a google cache.
It sure is! But with a little bit of persistence...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iLife'06 CONFIRMED!
- Thread starter rOckAPE
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It sure is! But with a little bit of persistence...
hob said:
I do agree - I too have a .Mac subscription, and would be a little peeved if I had to wave the remaining 6 months cash goodbye - but then, Apple aren't stupid - I'm sure they would offer existing .Mac users some kind of iLife '06 discount (even a freebie?!) - or free iTunes songs or something, to soften the blow at least - and as long as you retain the same features and email address etc, I cant really see the issue - as long as there is some kind of compensation given.
I just dont see how this supposed video-on-demand thing can work if its limited to just .Mac subscribers (and all the rumours so far point to it utilising an upgraded iDisk etc)...I'm sure the last figure I heard was something like 60,000 .Mac subscribers - not enough to start a world beating content-delivery system! You only have to look at how the iPod and iTunes exploded once they were freed from the Mac world alone.
SilentPanda said:
That's even cooler - Safari on an etch-a-sketch. Tablet Mac with dial controls. I want one
Has anybody remembered the 'new content dist. system' rumour? (https://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/12/20051202133834.shtml)
I think if it really is happening iWeb seems a reasonable name.
I think if it really is happening iWeb seems a reasonable name.
the response of dan from karelia about iWeb...
Astute Karelia observers and subscribers to our email list may have noticed the new logo we quietly unveiled at the beginning of the year. I had intended to write up the story behind the logo some time after Sandvox's release, but the rumors that started circulating on "the internets" yesterday prompted me to write it now. At the end, I have an announcement that will demonstrate how this logo applies to Karelia software today.
keep reading, follow the link
Astute Karelia observers and subscribers to our email list may have noticed the new logo we quietly unveiled at the beginning of the year. I had intended to write up the story behind the logo some time after Sandvox's release, but the rumors that started circulating on "the internets" yesterday prompted me to write it now. At the end, I have an announcement that will demonstrate how this logo applies to Karelia software today.
keep reading, follow the link
the-fish said:
If you go to the updated page that Apple posted in it's place you will see that the same reference to 4.9 is made. Also if you will browse through the earlier posts on this thread you will see that there is a Google cache of the original page and you can actually still see it. THIS WAS REAL, DANG IT!!!!
check it out yourself! Let's face it, Steve is set to dazzle and amaze us! (Well, maybe just amaze us.)
Sandvox & Rapidweaver
RapidWeaver is nice for creating smaller websites, and Sandvox looks promising too. Neither is designed to replace GoLive or Dreamweaver as we all know, and I'm sure the same will be said of iWeb.
Looks like Karelia is releasing a public beta of Sandvox next Monday in lieu of Apple's accidental "announcement" of iWeb. I liked the line on the Karelia blog about the possibility that iWeb will suck like Sherlock did. That's a distinct possibility.
I'm surprised it has taken Apple this long to release any sort of web creation software! Really! With design and media being so important to Apple and to most people who use Macs. Why wasn't something like this developed years ago?
PS - I hope iWeb isn't some warmed over, "retooled" version of Pages.
Ever try to export a Pages document to HTML? Gads.
cesar said:
RapidWeaver is nice for creating smaller websites, and Sandvox looks promising too. Neither is designed to replace GoLive or Dreamweaver as we all know, and I'm sure the same will be said of iWeb.
Looks like Karelia is releasing a public beta of Sandvox next Monday in lieu of Apple's accidental "announcement" of iWeb. I liked the line on the Karelia blog about the possibility that iWeb will suck like Sherlock did. That's a distinct possibility.
I'm surprised it has taken Apple this long to release any sort of web creation software! Really! With design and media being so important to Apple and to most people who use Macs. Why wasn't something like this developed years ago?
PS - I hope iWeb isn't some warmed over, "retooled" version of Pages.
Ever try to export a Pages document to HTML? Gads.
Bubbasteve said:I hope iWeb is an easy to use website designer...this would be great timing because I just got the urge to learn basic HTML and website design and with iWeb my dreams can come true... oh boy
*dreams* me too! hoping i can somehow Bluetooth my web site ideas from my brain to my iMac. thus perfection without touching the keyboard. come on iWeb!
Sedge
Swinny said:
There are almost a million...where did I read that....?
If I find the link, I'll post it - but I'm almost positive I read that somewhere recently.
Chris
Ah, apologies...maybe 600,000 then?
Either way - I would wager more copies of iLife are sold each year...
Either way - I would wager more copies of iLife are sold each year...
mainemike said:
Pages isn't designed as a wesbite making app, so HTML export is an afterthought mostly intended for all-text stuff. Clearly Apple wouldn't make a website building app that didn't properly export a website. That's like an oxymoron. It's like building iTunes so that it imported songs but wouldn't play them. No need to worry about using Pages' crappy HTML export engine - making a dedicated website building app and adding a tiny feature to a page layout app require different levels of accuracy for exporting. If people are using a website building app, they expect the website they publish to match what they create. If people are using Pages... they're using the wrong app to build a website, and the marginal results of an HTML export for anything other than all-text are to be expected.
And my personal outlook on the iWeb as part of iLife thing - Apple's prioritized and decided they'd rather sell more of .Mac than of iWork (Appleinside says the internal goal is a million subscribers). So putting iWeb in with iLife, which already sells a gazillion copies regardless, will boost .Mac sales, while iWork sales will see only a gradual increase from last year. If iWeb was with iWork, iWork might sell more copies, but the iWork audience is still smaller than iLife's, and iWeb wouldn't be in the hands of as many Mac users, thus selling fewer copies of .Mac. Ahhhh gotta love the business decisions. And I hate typing sentences with so many "iW"s.
emutree said:
I agree. Will be interesting to see what iWeb is all about. Lots of talk for an app that hasn't been released yet, but that's a good part of the fun!
From AppleInsider:
"The Web application, referred to as "Webpages 1.0" by AppleInsider sources, is said to draw heavily from components in Apple's "Pages" application to provide easy drag-and-drop capability for a variety of Web-optimized content and media types."
iWork
Speaking of iApp updates, what about iWork? It could really use a spreadsheet component. That lacking is the only thing really keeping me from buying it. iLife I don't really have much use for.
Speaking of iApp updates, what about iWork? It could really use a spreadsheet component. That lacking is the only thing really keeping me from buying it. iLife I don't really have much use for.
This could be an extended version of DashCode a full WSYSIWYG editor, but you'll never know how fast people work at Apple. But since this app should be bundled with iLife it's probably something else.
But well, I think Apple tried to make it look beautifull, but in the meantime it's all fake. There is no logo of iWeb on the page and usually the whole page will be redisigned when they update it. Also I was told that webpages couldn't be uploaded until they were complete so that's definitly a sign that Apple owned you here and is laughing out loud now.
But well, I think Apple tried to make it look beautifull, but in the meantime it's all fake. There is no logo of iWeb on the page and usually the whole page will be redisigned when they update it. Also I was told that webpages couldn't be uploaded until they were complete so that's definitly a sign that Apple owned you here and is laughing out loud now.
My theory is that 'leaks' on Apple's site itself are done on purpose.
A company of Apples size isn't uploading parts of their new website by clicking the 'put' button in Fetch.
There's absolutely no reason non working text links for new products should show up before their time.
Unless, of course, they have a rebel or two at Apple. Imagine that.
Then again, I'm sure it's easy for Apple to track who does what with regards to it's own freaking website. Resulting in said rebels being catapulted over Apples high security perimeter fence by a little creation of Steve's. He bought a medieval catapult, painted it white and called it iFired. It sits in the yard as a deterrent to be an ass.
A company of Apples size isn't uploading parts of their new website by clicking the 'put' button in Fetch.
There's absolutely no reason non working text links for new products should show up before their time.
Unless, of course, they have a rebel or two at Apple.
Imagine that. Then again, I'm sure it's easy for Apple to track who does what with regards to it's own freaking website. Resulting in said rebels being catapulted over Apples high security perimeter fence by a little creation of Steve's. He bought a medieval catapult, painted it white and called it iFired. It sits in the yard as a deterrent to be an ass.
The thing is, as cool as the black box looks, they don't want them to match the pro apps. Just like consumer computers come in white boxes, so should consumer apps. Plus I wouldn't count on the whole shrub brand sticking around for the new year - hopefully Apple will have an original concept for the design this year.
You're missing an icon for iWeb on that box there. My guess is they'd probably go for the typical globe to mean "web".
Personally I hope they go away from using that ugly tree thing. I liked iLife '04's box a lot better.
Personally I hope they go away from using that ugly tree thing. I liked iLife '04's box a lot better.
I don't know what to expect with iweb. I think the best bet is that if its in the ilife suite it will somehoow use the other programs to create a web site or something like that.
Did any .Mac users log in to Mac.com last week ?
If you did you saw a flash on the main page..
The flash showed "PHP,CSS,HTML" and others...
It's gone. Homepage does NOT have PHP..
If you did you saw a flash on the main page..
The flash showed "PHP,CSS,HTML" and others...
It's gone. Homepage does NOT have PHP..
applemax said:
Ok..Cool..It's probably a rotating banner type thing.But the point is .Mac doesn't have PHP in homepage.
Homepage also doesn't use domains that end in .edu or .org and such, and this video's been up (when you aren't logged in) ever since September. I think it just means the term ".mac" will go down in history along with the great internet catchphrases like PHP and .org, although it is misleading.
emutree said:
While that may be true the flash didn't appear until about a month ago.
And it could very well mean .Mac will be a registar.