iLife and iWork '06? Front Row?

[IJ Reilly]

It's a scary thought.

Word is a really bad word processing application to emulate. It's not good at what should be the core of its existance. Once you get past simple letter writing, the Intellisense overwhelms you with help, but typical functionality fails to function.

I wish we still had WAV, from the OpenDoc days. It was quite a capable document processor and the integration was amazing--probably better than Apple could do. WP had some amazing Macintosh application developers before they let them all go.

Well, I'm delighted to know that I'm not the only person to feel this way. I've been disappointed by many of the non-Microsoft entries into the word processor market. Instead of taking a fresh approach, they tend to be Word knock-offs -- IOW, bloated, complicated and ugly. One of the notable exceptions is the previously-mentioned Mellel.

The model of what a word processor can and should be IMO is the late, great WriteNow, which ironically was originally developed by NeXT and somehow found its way to the Mac. It was a paragon of simplicity, efficiency and speed. It didn't perform every trick in the book, but what it could do, it did very well.

 

[wiseguy27]

The thing about iLife '06 I'm most interested in is iPhoto. I'm holding off on buying Aperture for a few reasons, one being I want to see how many of its new features get added to the next iteration of iPhoto. The RAW workflow is probably out, but some of the webpage and book templates might make it in, as should the light box.

I too hope iPhoto will inherit some great features from Aperture, in the picture organizing and viewing areas (like using the timestamps within the files to "smartly group photos"). It would make it wonderful to use.

 

[mdelaney123]

iPhoto is in need of the biggest overhaul!

It is because of iPhoto that I still use an XP machine!

iPhoto needs to store all Keywords, Date Taken, Captions, etc in the EXIF information of each photo as well as in the iPhoto catalog. This way, if you loose the catalog, you don't loose all the work you did on each photo.

Also, they need to completely overhaul the way the photos are stored in the library folder. Currently there is NO rhyme or reason to it... Again, if you loose your catalog, you have a REALLY BIG mess on your hands...

I have 15K + photos that I have edited and tagged with keywords. I refuse to trust all of that work to a single catalog file.

Microsoft's Digital Image Suite is the ONLY software that I have seen that can organize in the ways I have described above. This is one case where I wish Apple would copy MS!!!!

 

[qtip919]

I completely agree. I dont know about anybody else but I really want iWork to be somewhat of a success and a credible productivity suite. Of course, I dont expect mass corporate penetration of the product, but it would be nice to see a lot more Mac users using it.

I think differentiation is the key here, as you rightly pointed out. There are a ton of word processors out there, and a lot of suites. Yet overall, they are all still doing the same things that Word and Star Office etc did all those years ago. MS to some degree is trying to change the way we use them with the huge UI change in Office 12, but I feel theres a ton of innovation still to be had from these suites.

Following on from your groupware comments, perhaps a lot of ideas could be taken from Groove Networks. http://www.groove.net/home/index.cfm

And in response to your point about the whole comms package, would you take the existing Mail/iCal/Address Book apps and place them into iWork, but more integrated or was you referring to something else?

I LOOOVE groove!

you're totally right on...its too bad that M$ basically owns groove at this point - that was a smart move on their part http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/apr05/04-08Groove.mspx

yeah, I want a major revamp of the existing apps (mail, ical, addybook) and make them into a single app (or maybe just tightly coordinate their relationship to each other) plus make some sort of relationship to whatever "work" apps get bundled into iwork...

there are many ways to do this, and office x tried this in the way in which when you launch word, for example, it presents you with the ability to create a mail, spreadsheet, ppt presentation etc... very confusing, but integration none the less...

Not sure what this could look like, but iLife does it ok, and iwork should do it better...

 

[Linkjeniero]

i have iwork 05, but i dont have much expiernce with keynote, i haved used pages a couple times and thought it was okay, but it needs to have a better blank document feature like word has. Plus a easy to use spereadsheet would be great too, and a graphing calculator built in.

You mean like Grapher?

 

[Epicurus]

You mean like Grapher?

If only Apple would integrate Grapher into iWork, making it a real replacement for the minimal graphing options in Keynote. The fact that Grapher is also pretty good at displaying equations tells me that iWork might finally get some integrated equation editor of its own. Using a LaTeX workaround is fine, but for some of the really simple things I shouldn't have to resort to a third party app.

 

[theappleguy]

Also, they need to completely overhaul the way the photos are stored in the library folder. Currently there is NO rhyme or reason to it... Again, if you loose your catalog, you have a REALLY BIG mess on your hands...

I have 15K + photos that I have edited and tagged with keywords. I refuse to trust all of that work to a single catalog file.

I agree. That's one of the reasons why I have never used iPhoto. I like to know exactly where all my photos are and having them in numbered folders doesn't really cut it.

 

[dernhelm]

Can't imagine a remote-only version of FrontRow being even remotely interesting on any Mac that wasn't already equipped with an IR receiver. Unless they develop a bluetooth version of the remote. I would not want to have to plug a IR receiver into a USB port for the remote to work. What a kludge!

But front row doesn't have to have a remote in order to be useful. I kind of like the interface even without a remote.

Not that it matters anyway, I wouldn't likely upgrade my version of iLife unless this time around. The current versions of the apps meet my needs quite nicely. But it'd be interesting to see what Apple comes up with that I "have to have..."

 

[diddy]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm...

...new Garageband.....that will be awesome.

 

[bousozoku]

Well, I'm delighted to know that I'm not the only person to feel this way. I've been disappointed by many of the non-Microsoft entries into the word processor market. Instead of taking a fresh approach, they tend to be Word knock-offs -- IOW, bloated, complicated and ugly. One of the notable exceptions is the previously-mentioned Mellel.

The model of what a word processor can and should be IMO is the late, great WriteNow, which ironically was originally developed by NeXT and somehow found its way to the Mac. It was a paragon of simplicity, efficiency and speed. It didn't perform every trick in the book, but what it could do, it did very well.

I understand your thinking. The only current document processor on the market which has some idea of reality is Lotus Word Pro because the people at Samna had more brains than all of the rest of the market when it came to graphical word processing on Windows. Their Amí Pro was the first with a true WYSIWYG processor and it eventually grew into a slightly (in contrast to Word and WordPerfect) bloated document processor. There was a time when I could appreciate WordPerfect and Word, but with Windows 3.1, bloat seemed to be in style. Word 4.0 for Mac was great and slick and quick, even on an 8 MHz machine. Still, with Amí Pro at about the same time, you could click into what was obviously the header and type your heading and you didn't receive a surprise when you printed it. Isn't that why we have graphical document processing anyway? We want it to look practically the same, given hardware dissimilarities. Otherwise, we might as well go back to WordStar 3.3, right, or proff, nroff, troff?

control-cThis text will be centered on the line.control-b
So will this text but it will also be bold and I need some control-iItaliccontrol-i, if my dot matrix printer can do that.control-bcontrol-c

Remember how much fun that is, especially on a 9 inch CRT?

Thank goodness for Pages!

 

[jsalzer]

Not feelin' it.

I'm just not feeling the "combine Mail, iCal, and Address Book into iWork" crowd.

Are you looking for these to no longer come with the OS? And have Apple sell computers without these basic tools - or produce a "lite" version to come standard, thereby frustrating new Mac users? Or do you want all of iWork to be a free app, in which case the development team will drop to nothing?

I don't see the rush to even just combine those three. I like them as separate apps in separate windows with the already-nice integration they have.

They are clean!!! They have drop-dead simple and attractive interfaces. People seem to forget that you can't clump together twenty things and not have it appear kind of clumpy (like, say, Word or Outlook). Asking Apple to perform the miracle of combining them all into one nice interface is like my users asking me to fit in 40 lines of information in each day of a month-view calendar I'm tying into our database - which, of course, still needs to allow them to see the entire month on a 640x480 res screen. With 12 point font. Miracles may exist, but not in a GUI! I almost want to hand them a sheet of paper and tell them "you fit 6*7=42 rectangles on this piece of paper and show me how to fit 40 lines of info in 12 point font into each."

Keep them clean, but keep them talking - and I'm a happy camper!!!

 

[kenaustus]

I think that iWork will replace AppleWorks on the Mactels simply because it would cost too much (in dollars and programming resources) to convert it to universal binaries. iWork 06 should therefore be as complete as AppleWorks, and more elegant as well. One key factor is that the AppleWorks replacement has to be ready when the Mactel versions of the Mac mini and iBook are released as the PPC versions came with AppleWorks.

I'll get both iWork 06 and iLife 06, mainly because the Macs in the office and at home are too new for me to consider new computers, and I need my "Apple Fix" at least once a year. If Aperture comes out in an "Express" version I'll probably get that also.

Front Row is, I believe, going to be more important than it appears today. I saw it for the first time last weekend and the Apple rep said it was the most important factor in most "switchers" buying an iMac - and he was sold out at the time. I think it will be part of iLife 06 and the $50 cost of a remote and receiver isn't that bad - especially when you consider that the current remote is $30 and the current receiver (the universal iPod stand) is $40. It may seem high, but look for a long backorder time within a fortnight of its release.

Right now I think that the good folks at Apple are pumped up big time and consider the MWSF Keynote to be a major moment in 2006. There are going to be a lot of exciting things going on in 2006, but I think the Keynote is going to be huge.

 

[ErikGrim]

iWorks, that has been a flop by all accounts, it needs a spreadsheet and connectivity to the miniSQL ( or whatever its called ). There is on point in having half an Office suite.

Except if you don't need a spreadsheet app

iWork has been a large factor in improving my marks this semester. Stunning and eye-catching presentation and nicely laid out reports.

 

[ErikGrim]

And for those who can't understand why you want FrontRow on a laptop, are you forgetting the fact that they are portably and comes with S-video out for easy connection to TVs and projectors? I'd say that FrontRow makes MORE sense on a laptop than on a computer screen.

 

[qtip919]

I'm just not feeling the "combine Mail, iCal, and Address Book into iWork" crowd.

Are you looking for these to no longer come with the OS? And have Apple sell computers without these basic tools - or produce a "lite" version to come standard, thereby frustrating new Mac users? Or do you want all of iWork to be a free app, in which case the development team will drop to nothing?

I don't see the rush to even just combine those three. I like them as separate apps in separate windows with the already-nice integration they have.

They are clean!!! They have drop-dead simple and attractive interfaces. People seem to forget that you can't clump together twenty things and not have it appear kind of clumpy (like, say, Word or Outlook). Asking Apple to perform the miracle of combining them all into one nice interface is like my users asking me to fit in 40 lines of information in each day of a month-view calendar I'm tying into our database - which, of course, still needs to allow them to see the entire month on a 640x480 res screen. With 12 point font. Miracles may exist, but not in a GUI! I almost want to hand them a sheet of paper and tell them "you fit 6*7=42 rectangles on this piece of paper and show me how to fit 40 lines of info in 12 point font into each."

Keep them clean, but keep them talking - and I'm a happy camper!!!

I totally see your point...the biggest selling point for an imac to my parents is the nice ical, mail and address book "freebies"...

however, I am speaking of a new, redesigned (I should have been more clear) groupware solution by building on mail, cal, and addybook...

(note: outlook and word are not bundled, and Im not sure I agree with your assesment of their clunkyness in how they relate with each other)

Outlook is a superior groupware solution to anything on the market for one simple reason: nothing has the same simple capabilities ....

however, if you were to try to use the power of ical, mail and adress book to do something similar to Outlook, you could have a very elegant groupware solution for mac os x for the small/medium business (im talking 500 - 5000 employees)

You would need a server solution in the background (of course) handling the global address list and providing email routing with spam filtering (a la exchange server) but come on! there really should be an OS X server competitor to Exchange by now...its just not that hard to build something like that for the small scale enterprise space

If you went one step further and integrated the "work" applications to be able to communicate with a groupware solution, you would have something along the lines of what I am DAYDREAMING about

Im just talking simple connectivity in the same way that iMovie can use iTunes

 

[JFreak]

I have 15K + photos that I have edited and tagged with keywords. I refuse to trust all of that work to a single catalog file.

Relax. A catalog is a catalog, just a file among all other files. I myself would not trust a single hard drive to store +15k photos, in my mind it's not the single catalog file that is untrustworthy but the hard drive that can fail anytime -- remember, nothing is backed up until it's backed up twice.

So please get over your single-catalog-file fear and learn to do periodical backups of your data. How hard it is to drag an iPhoto library folder to another hard drive and keep it there in calse of a disaster? Surely you have backups in your XP box too, or do you so blindly trust the hard drive makers that try to save every penny they can?

 

[JFreak]

I'm just not feeling the "combine Mail, iCal, and Address Book into iWork" crowd. (...) Keep them clean, but keep them talking - and I'm a happy camper!!!

Me too. I like the idea of small separate apps that do what they're supposed to do, and do it well. It's also easier to whine about "iCal that sucks" than for example complain about "outlook's calendar feature". If it's only iCal that needs to be improved, then Mail and Addressbook can be left alone and only focus on iCal. Just as an example.

What people usually are missing are buttons that open apps within another apps, but that's only because people have become used to outlook-like apps. There are buttons in the Dock, you know - no reason to put another buttons to Mail,iCal and Address book if they do the same function than icons in the Dock.

The "problem" is that Apple solution is different than Microsoft's, and in reality people don't like different things than they have become used to. Apple has a tough job to get people unlearn the Microsoft way of doing things - only after that people can realize how nice the Mail/Address/iCal combination really is. In fact, that also integrates with iChat and Safari, and has possibilities to be integrated to anything that deals with addresses.

 

[jsalzer]

however, I am speaking of a new, redesigned (I should have been more clear) groupware solution by building on mail, cal, and addybook...

Gotcha - sorry, I misunderstood. I'm used to being the only Mac user where I'm at and thinking of these in terms of single-user solutions.

(note: outlook and word are not bundled, and Im not sure I agree with your assesment of their clunkyness in how they relate with each other)

I was listing them as two separate examples of software programs that try to be too many things for too many people - didn't mean to imply that they were bundled or to talk about their relationship with each other. Just their relationships with themselves.

however, if you were to try to use the power of ical, mail and adress book to do something similar to Outlook, you could have a very elegant groupware solution for mac os x for the small/medium business (im talking 500 - 5000 employees)

Understood and agreed.

 

[mdelaney123]

Relax. A catalog is a catalog, just a file among all other files. .... -- remember, nothing is backed up until it's backed up twice.

So please get over your single-catalog-file fear and learn to do periodical backups of your data.

I backup my photos to an external hard disk and also to DVD.

I think you are missing the point. Locking your work on 15K photos into a single, propriatary catalog file is just not smart. You are at risk to loosing or corrupting your data everytime you use it. There is no easy way to share photos that contain the dates, captions, ratings, and keywords with other non-iPhoto users.

The fact of the matter is THERE IS A MUCH BETTER WAY to catalog photos:

1. Store all Keywords, dates, captions, etc ON EACH PHOTO and in a catalog file.

2. Allow the user to organzie their photos in directories that make sence to them.

3. Automatically scan those folders for changes / additions / deletions and update the catalog as needed.

MS Digital Image Suite does this quite well.

If i decide to move 1, 10, or 15K pictures to a CD or another computer, only the key information attached to those pictures moves with them. The OS (XP) can see that information and a new install of MS DIS will automatically look at those photos and recreate a catalog.

The only purpose of the catalog is to allow the speed in searching for and organizing each picture.

Please don't get me wrong here... I love iTunes, iMovie, and especially iDVD...

But I would not recommend ANYONE use iPhoto...

Mike

 

[iHavenolife]

The latest issue of Macworld (January 2006) predicts that front row will be put in with iLife '06 to work on all macs new or old.

 

[Project]

Hmm, so are we pretty much decided that Intel Macs will come with iWork for free? Seeing as Appleworks wont be ported over?

I feel sorry for Apple on this one though. Im sure they could come up with a Word processor that would be superior to Word, but they have to get the balance right as stepping on Microsofts toes too hard could see them pull Office:Mac out of the market. And we obviously know how big a blow that would be. so Pages is obviously being held back, and most people seem to be *****ting on the program, for want of a better word. Its pretty unfair I believe.

 

[JFreak]

I think you are missing the point. Locking your work on 15K photos into a single, propriatary catalog file is just not smart. The fact of the matter is THERE IS A MUCH BETTER WAY to catalog photos: Store all Keywords, dates, captions, etc ON EACH PHOTO and in a catalog file.

The fact that some picture file formats allow storing metadata does not necessarily mean that all picture file formats support it, and even if there IS metadata, it is not necessarily of the same format. Instead of file-level metadata it makes a great deal more sense to have a global catalog of picture attributes; and by the way, the picture file is one of them, an attribute to a picture object in a picture management software.

iPhoto is a library program, not a meta-data extractor. It deals with catalogs. Of course, Apple could have implemented that catalog as a MySQL database for example, but even that stores all catalog data on a single file and that solution also has a database system that can very well break for some reason. It is open for debate if iPhoto is a better database engine for this purpose than a generic SQL database engine, but a catalog file is just a database. Yes, it can corrput, but so can the kernel file too.

Allow the user to organzie their photos in directories that make sence to them. Automatically scan those folders for changes / additions / deletions and update the catalog as needed.

That is implemented in Tiger very well. It's called Spotlight. I'm so glad that Apple has guts to not implement every feature that anybody asks for, because in my (not so humble) opinion Apple has a better view about this than most of us. iPhoto is great! If only they would optimise the database engine better, because the app doesn't behave well when you have +100k photos.

MS Digital Image Suite does this quite well.

Then, keep using it. You have become used to that app and every other app is different. There's no reason to whine about the design principles of other apps, because the main reason for the whine is that YOU have so much become used to something that YOU would want to continue using a photo library app just the same way. The problem is that Apple is not at fault if YOUR favourite app is not ported to OSX, am I right? Apple's solution is great and if you don't like it, you have other alternatives.

The only purpose of the catalog is to allow the speed in searching for and organizing each picture.

Yes and no.

Yes, it's faster to search through a catalog than through +10G of image files, you're right about that, but the point is that the catalog is the only thing that iPhoto really cares about - it asks the catalog about everything, including such questions as "where is the image file for a picture object that has keyword 'summer' and is not older than six months?" -- The catalog is in the core of iPhoto, it's not just metadata.

The reason why iPhoto stores photo files in year/month/day directory structure is however somewhat redundant. As all the information is in the catalog, the files itself could be anywhere, and some power users would want that. Anyway, as we all know Apple's passion about the less computer-literate user, it is easy to understand why they did it like that; a regular user wants all photo files be located in one library, and the directory structure is only to prevent one giant +15k photo file directory from happening. Now you can easily just copy "all 2005 photos" from the finder if you want to.

You can just never satisfy everyone. Power users usually want different things than regular users, and as iPhoto is a part of iLife (made for regular users), I'd say power users should not whine, even if iPhoto currently isn't as good as it can be (for them). It's great in what it has been designed to be, which is making digital photography a piece of cake for my in-laws

 

[aegisdesign]

I'm guessing a bluetooth remote is most likely since it's now standard technology in new Macs and I don't expect that Apple would really return to IR across the line.

The problem with bluetooth is that it's such a power hog. You'd be forever replacing the batteries in your remote. And if it's not paired up with your Mac it takes a while to pair up.

IR is much more suitable for remotes.

 

[aegisdesign]

however, I am speaking of a new, redesigned (I should have been more clear) groupware solution by building on mail, cal, and addybook...

Please no. Keep them separate. The beauty there is that you can replace one part of the equation and still keep the other bits. eg. replacing Mail with Eudora and still using iCal or AddressBook.

Plus if I don't want my calendar or addressbook open, just mail, why should I be forced to?

Outlook is a superior groupware solution to anything on the market for one simple reason: nothing has the same simple capabilities ....

I'd disagree entirely. It's overly complex and doesn't play well with other standards. It's fine if you've an all-Microsoft solution but is a royal pain in the arse if you don't.

however, if you were to try to use the power of ical, mail and adress book to do something similar to Outlook, you could have a very elegant groupware solution for mac os x for the small/medium business (im talking 500 - 5000 employees)

You would need a server solution in the background (of course) handling the global address list

That's what LDAP does. Addressbook already uses LDAP directories.

and providing email routing with spam filtering (a la exchange server) but come on!

That's what OSX's mail server and Spam Assassin do already. Or you could use Kerio.

there really should be an OS X server competitor to Exchange by now...its just not that hard to build something like that for the small scale enterprise space

See Kerio. Apple's solution in OSX Server isn't as integrated, relying pretty much on off the shelf open source packages, but it's getting there. And it's a lot cheaper than Exchange. The hot favourite for taking it further Exchange style would be Hula - see http://www.hula-project.org/Hula_Project

If you went one step further and integrated the "work" applications to be able to communicate with a groupware solution, you would have something along the lines of what I am DAYDREAMING about

Well, they all currently talk to the individual apps now so stop daydreaming.

Im just talking simple connectivity in the same way that iMovie can use iTunes

You mean in the same way AddressBook connects to Mail and iCal can mail out meeting invites?

Sure it doesn't work the Microsoft Exchange/Outlook way, but that's it's strengh.

 

[Chobit]

Im the only person who likes using Pages?

I find it a pleasure to use.....

Add me to the list of pages lovers. There is still a lot of work to be done, but it has tons of potential, and is still good enough for me to use daily. My biggest gripe at the moment is lack of support for vertically written languages (sure, you can do Japanese left to right, but sometimes you really need it vertically). I can't wait for the new version.

The current version of keynote did away with all my gripes from version 1, and I don't know what they'll do to make it better, but I can't wait to see.