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.
iWork to Become a Web Application at Macworld?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, its quite straightforward: you simply cut the price.
Have you never heard of something going on Sale?
Now, back to the point at hand: you speculatively claimed that iWork's "value" was going to increase. It appears that your speculation was based on the rumor of an increase in its features.
OTOH, I suggested that it very well might come with a price increase too, which could offset any value-added attained from feature-itis.
Since I doubt that you actually have firm information that the price absolutely isn't going to go up, the easiest solution is for us to wait until the announcement.
FWIW, I would love to be wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think that that's particularly likely, although with the current economy, Apple might hold off a price increase until 2010, or do something like require a family account. I simply don't expect this one to be a simple give-away, since the feature will incur higher ongoing support costs "forever" via increased storage & bandwidth consumption.
-hh
I don't know why you'd expect the price to suddenly decrease. Apple has been charging the same price for this service for, what, five years now? And during that time their clear strategy has been to improve the service's features, to make it more appealing for the annual fee. Is it possible for the price to increase? Of course, but I think very unlikely. Not only would this mean a substantial change in strategy for Apple, the only argument you have supporting your worry is that something is virtually certain to happen which isn't even remotely suggested by the current rumors. This seems to me to be pure speculation, with a healthy dose of cynicism thrown in. And if Apple does increase the price, it better be proportional to the benefit, or the product simply won't sell -- and I'll be the first to say so.
I don't expect it to decrease. I'm merely showing how straightforward it is to satisfy your dismissive "completely bizarre criterion"
is Historical Past Precedence?
Apparently, you're dismissing all of the really pissed off Apple consumers when they were told that .mac was no longer going to be free, despite Apple inferred promises that it would always be so.
Agreed, but that approach is driving at remaining value-neutral.
-hh
Your argument is totally confusing to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Incidentally, .Mac was never free. From the time iTools became .Mac, it was $99 a year. If anyone was pissed off by that change, they should have dropped their subscriptions. I never heard any implications from Apple that it would "always" be free.
Incidentally, .Mac was never free. From the time iTools became .Mac, it was $99 a year. If anyone was pissed off by that change, they should have dropped their subscriptions. I never heard any implications from Apple that it would "always" be free.
Its there for you to re-read at your leisure.
My apologies for getting the name wrong. And insfoar as the implications of iTools being "free forever", I'm predisposed to defer to the comments made to me by former Newton & Apple software developer '{name deleted}', and this example or this one. They did drop their subscription.
-hh
No thanks, I already have. You think it's both too expensive and too cheap, and your predictions aren't even based on the current rumors, they are based entirely on your fears, and your assumption that Apple will do the stupidest possible thing.
You linked an article which concludes that Apple never said that iTools would be free forever, only that this is what some people assumed, and a thread in a forum where people are griping about the .Mac subscription charge. That proves... absolutely nothing. It certainly goes nowhere close to supporting your argument that Apple will start charging hundreds of dollars a year for subscriptions to web-based versions of their productivity applications, let alone that the Mac-based versions will disappear at the same time.
If by "too expensive and too cheap" you mean 'inadequate value', then I'd incline to agree with you, in part because broad adoption of net-centric 'cloud' resourcing requires affordable bandwidth, which is in short supply in the USA.
But in regards to my supposedly "baseless fears", the facts are that the general movement towards subscription-based software, aka Software as a Service (SaaS) is already underway...and even Microsoft now offers it for enterprises as small as only 6 seats. Fact, not Rumor.
One of the unspoken tenets underpinning the SaaS model is that customers are for life. That's why businesses like it. However, from the customer's perspective, the question is how good is it for them, as it is similar to the paradigm of Leasing an automobile rather than buying it (and having the option to run it forever). As a rule of thumb, if you use a piece of software for more than 3 years, its generally more cost effective for the consumer to buy it outright instead of 'renting' it.
It proves that Apple marketing literature did at least infer a "forever", even if there were exploitable loopholes in the legal disclaimer...and that there was a firestorm of anger from 2.2 million iTools customers back in 2002 over their service fee increase from $0/year to $99/year.
First off, I never said that the local Mac-based versions would disappear.
Secondly, I also never claimed that Apple will start charging hundreds of dollars/year.
For the latter, I made two distinct points:
1) I pointed out that at Apple's current rates, if I were to use them in lieu of another ISP, my costs would increase by around $350-$100 = $250/year. This is a critique of value for Apple's current price structure on MobileMe.
2) I pointed out my doubts that the webification of iWork et al will result in absolutely no cost increases... and that I would love to be wrong , but the fiscal reality is that: "...the feature will incur higher ongoing support costs "forever" via increased storage & bandwidth consumption."
I don't dispute that adding features without raising the price would be a good thing.
My point is that I'm not comfortable in making that prediction (more features, no price increase) , but you certainly seem to be doing precisely that.
Your basis for your predition seems to be that Apple hasn't raised the price of iTools/.Mac/MobileMe since they raised it from $0 to $99/year back in 2002 ... but gosh, isn't an equally valid interpretation of that same data suggest that with zero price increases over the past 6 years that a price hike may very well now be due?
-hh
No, I have made no such prediction. In fact I have made no predictions at all. I have simply been arguing against the premise that Apple will start an online applications service that will require customers to spend hundreds of dollars a year for something they are already getting for less (or nothing), since there is no actual evidence to support such an assertion and no actual logic behind it that I can detect. The only support that I can find behind this theory is that Apple could make a lot of money on online applications. Now here's a really horrifying fact: Apple is in the business of making money. But of course this and other profit-making schemes only work if they can create a value proposition people will find valuable and accept, since last I heard they were not empowered to remove money from anyone's bank account without their assent.
It's interesting to me that both of the threads about the rumors that Apple will be expanding the online component of their software has been the source of so much wailing and moaning, based on so many unsupported assumptions. It's also interesting to me that for many, rumors (especially the really vague ones like this), so readily become the carriers for their worst fears. This seems at least somewhat lacking in rationality to me, which is why I continue to repeat the basic remedy that we all have when a company offers a product that we don't find to be a good value proposition.
But you're disagreeing with any potential for a possible price increase, which means you're predicting no price increase. In conjunction with your Post 193, you've clearly come close enough:
(blue: emphasis added)
Moving on:
"Hundreds of Dollars"?
Once again, you're putting words into my mouth.
Cease and Desist.
All along, my point has simply been that the addition of cloud-based is invariably going to have to include a way to extract more money out of the consumer, probably in terms of monthly or annual fees, because said increases in service can't be provided by Apple without themselves incurring higher expenses.
More cloud features logically leads to increased utilization, which leads to increased bandwith and data storage consumption. Increased bandwidth, more hardware and higher energy consumptions incur costs ... if not paid for through higher fees charged somehow to the customer, then how are they to going to be paid for?
Magic Pixie Dust?
I don't think so. One alternative is to hold the line on price and "take it out of hide" by lower the product's profits. A second order contributor would be some incrimental savings from higher productivity and efficiency. Can you come up with anything else?
Which means that the aforementioned option of lowering profits is off the table, and they've already captured the fiscally practical productivity & efficiency gains.
So where else can they cut to provide the service without increasing fees?
More Magic Pixie Dust?
Understood, but the problem remains that by effectively denying the possibility of raising prices, you're failing to acknowledge what it is that has to "give" in the financial business model, to offset the inevitable higher operating costs from providing the increased services.
As such, you're pooh-poohing the expressed concerns with a mantra that we're going to somehow get more features and more service without any concern for how its going to be paid for. And you then accuse those who question your claim as being irrational?
-hh
I realize you are never going to accept this, but I am neither "predicting" nor "denying" anything. I'd have to know a great deal more than I do about Apple's plans than I do currently to take either position with confidence. But by the same toke, I can see no point in being alarmed without cause. Having neither the time nor the inclination to repeat myself endlessly, I will say only that we will see what we will see when we see it. Then we can argue about whether it makes sense economically or technically.
I don't want to get in the middle of this but I can't resist saying that this is one of the best debates I have ever read online.
That was my entertainment for the day.
And might I say how good it is that the two of you have managed to keep all personal attacks out of it.
On a final note, best wait until the announcement instead of all this speculating.
That was my entertainment for the day.
And might I say how good it is that the two of you have managed to keep all personal attacks out of it.
On a final note, best wait until the announcement instead of all this speculating.
Keynote just finished.
iWork.com - - a new service for collaboration. It will be free while in public beta, but there will be a fee later. How much the fee will be wasn't mentioned in MacWorld's live stream feed.
Here's Apple's iWork-dot-com web page. No future price info there yet either.
-hh
Not 'fears' per se, but just a simple confirmation that it wasn't going to be free, as some others were apparently hoping for.
It is a new feature that I pretty much know that I won't be able to use, so my personal value proposition determination of iWork 09 will naturally take this "non-feature" into account when differentiating it from prior revisions of iWork. The good news is that the old version of iWork will go on sale
However, do take note my phrasing here, for "won't be able to use" isn't the same thing as "have no use for".
By this, I am saying that I do have use for occasional document collaboration, but I'll "not be able to use" iWork.com to do this because my application is nearly exclusive to work, and our Enterprise's IT security policies thus apply. The local IT flatly prohibits going "outside our fence" to place any of our in-house business data/correspondence on any private service provider. and prior proposals or requests for relief have been shot down with extreme prejudice.
I anticipated and alluded to this as an implimentation issue when I referred to how iWeb's synchronization feature is crippleware beause it is limited to only the MobileMe ISP service. Granted, it is premature to say that iWork must be identically hardwired to iWork.com in the same fashion, but it is a reasonable enough assumption to make at this point.
Personally, I would expect that the iWork.com feature may be very much appreciated by students while in public beta and later by small businesses. The security/IT concern is probably more the domain of larger Enterprise establishments which I agree are not part of Apple's current target demographic.
But a possible (and more corporately acceptable) alternative could be to relax the hard tie to iWork.com by softening it to only requiring a Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server, as this would then allow those businesses who want to keep their sensitive corporate documents contained in-house on their local intranet to do so by buying an Apple Server for local installation.
-hh
Not 'fears' per se, but just a simple confirmation that it wasn't going to be free, as some others were apparently hoping for.
It is a new feature that I pretty much know that I won't be able to use, so my personal value proposition determination of iWork 09 will naturally take this "non-feature" into account when differentiating it from prior revisions of iWork. The good news is that the old version of iWork will go on sale
However, do take note my phrasing here, for "won't be able to use" isn't the same thing as "have no use for".
By this, I am saying that I do have use for occasional document collaboration, but I'll "not be able to use" iWork.com to do this because my application is nearly exclusive to work, and our Enterprise's IT security policies thus apply. The local IT flatly prohibits going "outside our fence" to place any of our in-house business data/correspondence on any private service provider. and prior proposals or requests for relief have been shot down with extreme prejudice.
I anticipated and alluded to this as an implimentation issue when I referred to how iWeb's synchronization feature is crippleware beause it is limited to only the MobileMe ISP service. Granted, it is premature to say that iWork must be identically hardwired to iWork.com in the same fashion, but it is a reasonable enough assumption to make at this point.
Personally, I would expect that the iWork.com feature may be very much appreciated by students while in public beta and later by small businesses. The security/IT concern is probably more the domain of larger Enterprise establishments which I agree are not part of Apple's current target demographic.
But a possible (and more corporately acceptable) alternative could be to relax the hard tie to iWork.com by softening it to only requiring a Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server, as this would then allow those businesses who want to keep their sensitive corporate documents contained in-house on their local intranet to do so by buying an Apple Server for local installation.
-hh
Good post, and there's a couple things that are good signs to your position. First is that iWeb is no longer crippled by being tied to MobileMe for the publishing features. It now has built-in FTP so you can use it with any FTP host the same way it would work with MobileMe (at least for publishing).
The other thing is that Leopard server contained a number of new server technologies that are similar in nature to what you're looking for, so it's entirely possible that Snow Leopard server will contain an iWork server, maybe even with actual editing features since it wouldn't be up to Apple to maintain the integrity of the data. Probably not, but at least the iWork Server has a good chance of being integrated into Snow Leopard Server, or maybe as an add-on.
jW
I think the biggest news here (and the one that should cause some to stop hyperventilating) is that the new version of iWork is not "entirely" internet-based by any stretch of an over-stretched imagination. The iwork.com feature is one of many added to iWork '09 which (like the update itself) can be taken or left, depending on what you need.
Agreed; saw that on the new iWeb page last night...to finally have iWeb uncrippled by the ability to do incremental updates on my domains will probably save me the inconveniences of 100+MB transfer per update.
Agreed: there's essentially no technical rationale for limiting it to iWork.com, other than to maintain a certain 'Apple level' of product service quality, which tying it to OS X Server would allow them to retain sufficient control to thus permit...once it gets out of Beta.
Given how we've seen how Apple has had scaling-up teething problems, perhaps we'll see more Apple Public Beta efforts (shades of 'Google Labs'?) for the foreseeable future...a smart move because it customer expectations are dramatically different when its free (and thus proactive) in lieu of customer service damage control through "30 days free credit extension" (which is reactive), etc.
Its also smart to see that Apple has functionally limited and controlled the cloud interface to a user-initiated action, as there had been a lot of complaints about how prior efforts have been "chatty" (bandwidth consumptuative) and for lack of a better term, "frugal" high speed bandwidth remains elusive as well as an endangered species, with some ISPs now becoming more overtly opposed to "unlimited" plans and working on various methods & fee structures to impose bandwidth caps.
-hh
I can't agree with this. Obviously iwork.com has to run Apple's proprietary server software for it do what it does. I suppose Apple could distribute this software to others, but why should they? Perhaps someone will come up with a reverse-engineered open source version. But I do agree that Apple is being smarter by offering the free public beta first.
But by 'supposing that they could distribute this software', aren't you actually agreeing with me that it isn't a technical barrier?
I agree: the functional constraint is not because its technically impossible to do, but because it has to meet the corporate business interests...little pesky things like being profitable.
For any product development project, the very very generalized process is:
- Can we do it? (technical)
- Would someone want it? (business)
- How much will it need to cost? (technical, mostly)
- Will they buy it at that price? (business)
- If #4 is 'No', what can we change that will make #3 lower? (technical)
- etc ... it continues to bounce around the loop.
- Okay, what do the Marketing guys have to add?
- And who are we going to ask to pay for this project?
- Hey, who let a Lawyer sneak in here?
Yup, its all about "shaping" the terrain of customer expectations. Don't be surprised if somewhere along through the beta, that Apple accomplishes customer surveying on price points and the degree of elasticity, etc...again, its work to support the business case after the supporting technical details have been hammered out.
-hh
I took from you comment the implication that "no technical rationale" meant that this technology could probably be readily deployed on any web server, e.g., in the manner of WebDav. It may be a relatively portable set of protocols, like WebDav, or maybe something more complex, like WebObjects. We really don't know. It's your use of the word "rationale" that raised a question in my mind about what you meant.
My apologies; you read more into it than I intended.
My point was simply that since it had been demonstrated to be "...within the realm of the possible...", that there was no technical reason why the work couldn't be repeated/adapted/ported/recompiled/etc onto some other target host platform.
The amount of work that this may require to accomplish this isn't relevant from a technical perspective - - those are management and money issues.
It could be as simple as the work is already done. Or it could require the source code to be ported, recompiled, etc. Or it could be even more laborious. However, because its been done once before, we know that it is technically within the realm of the possible to do again.
-hh