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
Thataboy said:
.Mac = money. RapidWeaver = money. Freeway = lots of money. Sure iLife costs money but it's something most of us will get anyway... and its GarageBand, iMovie, iPhoto... etc aswell! Good value.
Thataboy said:
Good Call on that. With that being said, i think Apple would be smart to create a Webpage creator to include in iWork.
My long time hope would be that apple comes out with a Webkit- NVU / Mozilla Composer type app. It would be flexible, allowing both rapidweaver type design, up to a CSS and HTML editor. I would love it if it used valid XHTML, but I doubt Apple would do that, because they like to work on simple ideas. Maybe it would be part of iWork. However, with the rumoured Widgetcode, they could have a could Webkit-editing framework.... It would really be stupid, in my opinion, so have people pay for .Mac. Maybe they can give it out free again!
AtHomeBoy_2000 said:
I thought they stopped with all the iNames...that fact makes me wonder about this a little bit...
Anyway, Front Page-type add would be great, even if it is only for .Mac (sorry, I already have .Mac)
.mac -> iWeb
I personally would love it if .mac was completely done away with and replaced with iWeb in iLife. As long as it comes for the same price and does not require a new subscription every year.
Wasn't there another rumor about .mac increasing monthly bandwidth to 1TB?
DavidLeblond said:
I personally would love it if .mac was completely done away with and replaced with iWeb in iLife. As long as it comes for the same price and does not require a new subscription every year.
Wasn't there another rumor about .mac increasing monthly bandwidth to 1TB?
If iWeb is a web design program, of course it won't be only for .mac. Why would they sell it as part of iLife if it was? There's no way Apple would make you pay once for iLife then say, oh sorry, you have to pay another $99 to use one of the programs we included. If it was only intended for .mac, Apple would sell it through the .mac site or as a seperate stand-alone application.
Of course this is all speculation over a product that hasn't even been announced, but then that's half the fun, right?
Of course this is all speculation over a product that hasn't even been announced, but then that's half the fun, right?
Ooops....
FrontRow could have been a logical part of iLife 06, but a consumer-oriented Web-authoring tool with Apple style and ease makes very good sense too.
Like Pages only for the Web. It could integrate really well with iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, and (hopefully NOT required!) .Mac too.
Macromedia Contribute is great for non-Web-professionals, but it's a different niche--it's for maintenance, not creation.
Look at what Apple did with iDVD to give people style AND flexibility. Amazing. They could do something great with iWeb too, if it's what it sounds like.
Does Apple NEED to do this? No. But it adds value to the iLife package, and more importantly, it adds value to NEW MACS, which come with iLife. This is something people COULD do in other, less-integrated ways, if they researched and obtained the tools on their own. Having it served up ready-to-go and pre-installed is much more useful to the average consumer. (And Apple's templates may be better than we've seen from other companies too.)
FrontRow could have been a logical part of iLife 06, but a consumer-oriented Web-authoring tool with Apple style and ease makes very good sense too.
Like Pages only for the Web. It could integrate really well with iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, and (hopefully NOT required!) .Mac too.
Macromedia Contribute is great for non-Web-professionals, but it's a different niche--it's for maintenance, not creation.
Look at what Apple did with iDVD to give people style AND flexibility. Amazing. They could do something great with iWeb too, if it's what it sounds like.
Does Apple NEED to do this? No. But it adds value to the iLife package, and more importantly, it adds value to NEW MACS, which come with iLife. This is something people COULD do in other, less-integrated ways, if they researched and obtained the tools on their own. Having it served up ready-to-go and pre-installed is much more useful to the average consumer. (And Apple's templates may be better than we've seen from other companies too.)
After some thought...
What if Front Row gets released as a free download or bundled with a remote kit for other Macs? And thereafter ships as part of the operating system? iTunes, DVD Player & QuickTime ship with the OS, that's enough to start with Front Row.nagromme said:
liketom said:iWeb how original
i was hoping they would buy out realmac as well
all good though
Interestingly these guys http://iweb.ca/en/index.php have "iWeb" trade marked.
nagromme said:
My heart thinks about iWeb being an iDVD for websites - nirvana.
My head thinks about iWeb being a Pages for websites - disaster
I believe you mean iWeb replacing the homepage creator part of .mac?danielwsmithee said:
Anyway, I could see people using iWeb to create web pages for any webserver, but if they have .mac, it works with the .mac homepage features.
This way everybody can use iWeb, and .mac subscribers get more.
Trademarked in which countries?Steamboatwillie said:Interestingly these guys http://iweb.ca/en/index.php have "iWeb" trade marked.
thequicksilver said:
Speak for yourself - some of us [me] love Pages. I'd love to see a Pages for websites much more than an iDVD for websites. iDVD makes great looking stuff, yeah, but it's impossible to easily modify any of the stuff to reflect your own creativity - you can't make your own templates. In Pages you have a lot more freedom, which I hope an iWeb would allow as well.
I was really excited about Karelia's Sandvox being released soon... I truly hope Apple just took these guys on as part of their development staff instead of trampling all over them. It seems like as soon as some independent mac developer comes up with great software, Apple has to create their own version. Konfabulator, Audion, Watson, the list goes on. It was great when Apple took on the Cassidy and Greene guys for iTunes, and yeah the Audion people had their chance, but I feel that Apple should set an example and rather than make their own software similar to these smaller third parties, Apple should at least collaborate, hire, or do more to promote those who like to independently develop for Mac. I just feel that Apple is taking too much control instead of promoting what being a mac user really is, thinking different and producing work that is both innovative and unique.
So Garageband 3 will have a one-step podcast-making feature.
And could iWeb be that killer consumer-orientated webpage-making app I have been wanting for years now?!!!! It's my first day at work next Monday but I should return home in time for Steve's annoucnements (I'm 8 hours ahead of California!) I'll have itchy trigger fingers on that Apple online store!! (Or do you think I should drop by Regent Street?)
And could iWeb be that killer consumer-orientated webpage-making app I have been wanting for years now?!!!! It's my first day at work next Monday but I should return home in time for Steve's annoucnements (I'm 8 hours ahead of California!) I'll have itchy trigger fingers on that Apple online store!! (Or do you think I should drop by Regent Street?)
Premature specification
What Apple REALLY needs to release is not iWeb, but Final Web Pro Extreme Advance. (That's right, not "Advanced." Grammar is dead.)
It would be a $10,000-a-seat tool for big companies with big sites, and it would do just ONE job, but do it well: it would keep track of what pages are CURRENT on the site, vs. what pages are being worked on for the FUTURE.
This would revolutionize Apple's current method (Sharpie pen on the forearm) for keeping track of what info should go up on Apple.com and when.
What Apple REALLY needs to release is not iWeb, but Final Web Pro Extreme Advance. (That's right, not "Advanced." Grammar is dead.)
It would be a $10,000-a-seat tool for big companies with big sites, and it would do just ONE job, but do it well: it would keep track of what pages are CURRENT on the site, vs. what pages are being worked on for the FUTURE.
This would revolutionize Apple's current method (Sharpie pen on the forearm) for keeping track of what info should go up on Apple.com and when.
Track Record
Apple has a track record of re-inventing applications made by small companies. onfabulator became Dashboard, whatwasit became Sherlock and now RapidWeaver will become iWeb.
I can't help but believe that attacking small software houses is counter productive to support for the platform, but I guess that all software compoanies are at war with each other.
Apple has a track record of re-inventing applications made by small companies. onfabulator became Dashboard, whatwasit became Sherlock and now RapidWeaver will become iWeb.
I can't help but believe that attacking small software houses is counter productive to support for the platform, but I guess that all software compoanies are at war with each other.
cesar said:if this is true, I feel sorry for the karelia and realmac software guys. remember panic audion.
or maybe, the karelia guys sold out to apple...
I was thinking the same thing. They'd be out of business in a second.
Audion was bought out though wasn't it?
This looks like the best MWSF ever.
JW Pepper said:
I was just looking at Sandvox, it almost looks like something that already is an iWork / iLife app. Very interesting.
emutree said:
I don't know if I love it, but I think it's a really good program. I'm one who used to use Word, and I much prefer Pages' approach to layout. I have not used the high-end layout apps, so can't compare. Maybe Pages is crap compared to InDesign (or whatever), but it's helped me a bunch.
I haven't used it's HTML export, but the consensus seems it is between poor and useless. I wonder why? So many of Pages' layout properties are similar to CSSfixed and floating objects, borders, margins, etc.
If Apple has had time to fix Pages 1.0 in respect to outputing web pages, then they might be wise to rebrand it and move it to the consumer apps. After all, why does Pages allow you to embed sound and movies, anyway? Has this always been their plan?
nagromme said:
More importantly, it adds value (LOTS of value) to .Mac, something that's not exactly been lighting up Apple's sales carts as of late.
Let's say it's an integrated vodcast/podcast/web publishing tool that integrates not only with iLife, but an improved Pages product that exports decent HTML/CSS. Now you're looking to boost sales of not one but three products.
Genius.
I left .Mac after they started charging, but this would be enough to bring me back in a flash.
I hope you don't mean WatsonJW Pepper said:
which of course came after Sherlock and was inspired by Sherlock, not the other way around.There are two extremes Apple could take: wipe out every small software company (luckily they don't) on the one hand, or on the other hand, refuse to add ANY value to Macs if there is any small company already offering it. That extreme would be very bad too.
So Apple's in the middle--sometimes they add value to Macs by adding features that you COULD get on your own with shareware. But now you don't have to, and it can be more integrated with other apps. Those are good things. Unfortunately the shareware developer then can only sell to users who do NOT own the Apple product. Their market shrinks. Sad, but there's no avoiding it. Apple does not do this to compete with small one-person companies. They do this to compete with Microsoft.
And when several companies all solve the same problem, it's not necessarily "copying." The problems/needs exist, and so companies step up to meet them.